Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>>> On Mon, Sep 23, 2013 at 02:37:29PM -0700, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
>>>> Then start over with sorted hunks (for example
>>>> building a table of offsets within the patch for each hunk to
>>>> support this).
> Well, then the result is not compatible with what
> original patch-id would produce.
Nope, I meant sorting to produce what the original patch-id would
produce for a diff with the default sorting order. The result is a
patch-id that can be compared with patch-ids from earlier versions of
git as long as -O<orderfile> was not used (which was already not
compatible with reliable use of patch-id).
> Just making sure: is it correct that there's no requirement to use same
> algorithm between patch-ids.c and builtin/patch-id.c ?
I think so, as long as Documentation/git-cherry.txt is updated to stop
pretending 'git cherry' calls 'git patch-id' and the two get comments
about it, though it seems simpler to keep them roughly the same.
(They already differ in handling of binary files.)
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html