"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 scientist. -- 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
