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? > or the set of files > mentioned by the "diff --git" lines are not in ascending order), > perhaps? I hope a patch-id configuration flag plus maybe checking the orderfile if not specified together should be good enough. -- MST -- 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
