On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 03:12:14PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > "Michael S. Tsirkin" <m...@redhat.com> writes: > > >> > +--unstable:: > >> > + Use a non-symmetrical sum of hashes, such that reordering > >> > >> What is a non-symmetrical sum? > > > > Non-symmetrical combination function is better? > > I do not think either is very good X-<. > > The primary points to convey for "--stable" are: > > - Two patches produced by comparing the same two trees with two > different settings for "-O<orderfile>" will result in the same > patchc signature, thereby allowing the computed result to be used > as a key to index some metainformation about the change between > the two trees; > > - It will produce a result different from the plain vanilla > patch-id has always produced even when used on a diff output > taken without any use of "-O<orderfile>", thereby making existing > databases keyed by patch-ids unusable. > > The fact that we happened to use a patch-id that catches that > somebody reordered the same patch into different file order and > declares that they are two different changes is a more historical > accident than a designed goal. > > I would even say that we would have used the "stable" version from > the beginning if we thought that "-O<orderfile>" would be widely > used when these two features both appeared. Even though I was the > guilty one who introduced it, I'd admit that "-O<orderfile>" has > merely been a curiosity from its inception and has been a failed > experiment, not in the sense that the feature does not work as > adverertised (it does), but in the sense that it is not widely used > (evidenced by the lack of complaints on missing diff.orderfile for a > long time) at all. With "-O<orderfile>" being a failed experiment, > the "unstability" did not matter, so it has stuck. > > The only two things worth mentioning about "--unstable", if our > future direction is to see diff.orderfile and "--stable" a lot more > widely used, are: > > (1) it keeps producing the same patch-id as existing versions of > Git, so users with existing databases (who do not deal with > reordered patches) may want to use it; and perhaps > > (2) it will not consider a patch taken with "-O<orderfile>" and > another without it from the same source the same patches. > > Mathmatically speaking, mentioning "non-symmetrial" might be one way > of expressing the latter point (2), but stressing on that alone > without mentioning (1) misses the point. (2) is _not_ a designed > feature, so it is not very interesting. Unless you have an existing > database, there is no reason to use "--unstable". > > On the other hand (1) is a very relevant thing to mention, as we are > talking about a feature that, if unused, may break existing users' > data.
OK I did just that, pls take a look. -- 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
