On Wed, Feb 05, 2014 at 12:06:41PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:

> > Actually, since 1190a1ac, if you have repacked and gotten the same pack
> > name, then you do not have to do any rename dance at all; you can throw
> > away what you just generated because you know that it is byte-for-byte
> > identical.
> >
> > You could collide with a pack created by an older version of git that
> > used the original scheme, but that is quite unlikely (on the order of
> > 2^-160).
> Yes, so in that sense this is not so urgent, but I'm tempted to
> split the original patch into two and merge only the first one to
> 'master' before -rc3 (see below).  The renaming of the variables
> added enough noise to cause me fail to spot a change mixed within.

That sounds very sensible. The only reason I did not follow-up 1190a1ac
immediately with a patch to drop the rename code was that it is a
sensitive area, and I wanted to be very sure there would be no other
fallouts. And then of course I didn't get around to it yet. But
following the same logic, trying to do it during -rc would be a terrible
idea. :)

The minimal fix you posted below does make sense to me as a stopgap, and
we can look into dropping the code entirely during the next cycle. It
would be nice to have a test to cover this case, though.

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

Reply via email to