Jacob Keller <[email protected]> writes: > On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 10:06 AM, Jeff King <[email protected]> wrote: >> On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 08:17:38AM -0700, Stefan Beller wrote: >> >>> On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 10:03 PM, Jeff King <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> > I guess this will invalidate old patch-ids, but there's not much to be >>> > done about that. >>> >>> What do you mean by that? (What consequences do you imagine?) >>> I think diffs with any kind of heuristic can still be applied, no? >> >> I mean that if you save any old patch-ids from "git patch-id", they >> won't match up when compared with new versions of git. We can probably >> ignore it, though. This isn't the first time that patch-ids might have >> changed, and I think the advice is already that one should not count on >> them to be stable in the long term. >> >> -Peff > > Plus they'll be stable within a version of Git, it's only recorded > patch ids that change, which hopefully isn't done very much if at all. > > Thanks, > Jake
Some people, like those who did things like 30e12b92 (patch-id: make it stable against hunk reordering, 2014-04-27), _may_ care. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
