Michael S. Tsirkin m...@redhat.com writes:
Patch id changes if you reorder hunks in a diff.
If you reorder hunks, the patch should no longer apply [*1*], so a
feature to make patch-id stable across such move would have no
practical use ;-), but I am guessing you meant something else.
Perhaps
On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 09:58:41AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Michael S. Tsirkin m...@redhat.com writes:
Patch id changes if you reorder hunks in a diff.
If you reorder hunks, the patch should no longer apply [*1*], so a
feature to make patch-id stable across such move would have no
On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 09:58:41AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Michael S. Tsirkin m...@redhat.com writes:
Patch id changes if you reorder hunks in a diff.
If you reorder hunks, the patch should no longer apply [*1*], so a
feature to make patch-id stable across such move would have no
Michael S. Tsirkin m...@redhat.com writes:
I started to remove that code, but then I recalled why I did it like
this. There is a good reason. Yes, you can't simply reorder hunks just
like this. But you can get the same effect by prefixing the header:
Yes, that is one of the things I
On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 11:03:46AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Michael S. Tsirkin m...@redhat.com writes:
I started to remove that code, but then I recalled why I did it like
this. There is a good reason. Yes, you can't simply reorder hunks just
like this. But you can get the same
On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 08:39:17PM +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 11:03:46AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Michael S. Tsirkin m...@redhat.com writes:
I started to remove that code, but then I recalled why I did it like
this. There is a good reason. Yes, you
6 matches
Mail list logo
