"Michael S. Tsirkin" <m...@redhat.com> writes:

> On Mon, Mar 31, 2014 at 12:54:46PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>> "Michael S. Tsirkin" <m...@redhat.com> writes:
>> > The hash used is mostly an internal implementation detail, isn't it?
>> Yes, but that does not mean we can break people who keep an external
>> database indexed with the patch-id by changing the default under
>> them, and "they can give --unstable option to work it around" is a
>> workaround, not a fix.  Without this change, they did not have to do
>> anything.
>> I would imagine that most of these people will be using the plain
>> vanilla "git show" output without any ordering or hunk splitting
>> when coming up with such a key.  A possible way forward to allow the
>> configuration that corresponds to "-O<orderfile>" while not breaking
>> the existing users could be to make the "patch-id --stable" kick in
>> automatically (of course, do this only when the user did not give
>> the "--unstable" command line option to override) when we see the
>> orderfile configuration in the repository, or when we see that the
>> incoming patch looks like reordered (e.g. has multiple "diff --git"
>> header lines that refer to the same path,
> This would require us to track affected files in memory.
> Issue?

Don't we already do that in order to handle a patch that touches the
same path more than once anyway?  I think a possibly larger issue
might be that you would still want to do the hashing in a single
pass so you may need to always keep two accumulated hashes, before
you can decide if the patch is or is not a straight-forward one and
use one of the two, but that hopefully should not require a rocket
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