Joe Perches <j...@perches.com> wrote:
> > > Small nit, checkpatch usually complains that this should be written as
> > > 12-character SHA-1 followed by the commit subject, i.e.
> > >
> > > 0a637ee61247 ("x86/efi: Allow invocation of arbitrary boot services")
> >
> > In this case, checkpatch is wrong.
>
> Why do you think so?
Actually, checkpatch doesn't complain about embedded commit IDs anymore, so in
that case, it's just about acceptable.
Apart from that, I think we should put in the full SHA-1 commit. The
probability of a collision in a 12-digit hex number for the >5,000,000 commits
just in Linus's tree is currently at ~4.5% and gradually increasing. Add in
all the commits in not-yet-upstreamed trees - which might be another million
commits, say - then we're over 6%..
Oh, yes, and speaking of checkpatch, can you make it so that if it sees:
commit 12345...
Author: foo <foo@bar>
Date: blah
Subject line
Description lines
...
...
...
...
Signed-off-by-and-suchline-lines
diff ...
with the all description indented by 4 spaces, then assume that it's the
output of git show and not give the warnings about signed-off-by and other
things being indented?
David
