From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] patch-id: make it stable against hunk reordering Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2014 19:34:55 +0200 Message-ID: <20140327173455.GB2593@redhat.com> References: <1395912239-29663-1-git-send-email-mst@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, jrnieder@gmail.com, peff@peff.net To: Junio C Hamano X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Thu Mar 27 18:36:49 2014 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1WTEET-0003q1-GM for gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org; Thu, 27 Mar 2014 18:36:49 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756141AbaC0Rgo (ORCPT ); Thu, 27 Mar 2014 13:36:44 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:39541 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755441AbaC0Rgn (ORCPT ); Thu, 27 Mar 2014 13:36:43 -0400 Received: from int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.24]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id s2RHYWwQ005392 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Thu, 27 Mar 2014 13:34:33 -0400 Received: from redhat.com (vpn1-7-130.ams2.redhat.com [10.36.7.130]) by int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with SMTP id s2RHYULq007888; Thu, 27 Mar 2014 13:34:31 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.68 on 10.5.11.24 Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 09:58:41AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > "Michael S. Tsirkin" 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 this is about using "-O " option, even though you > happened to have implemented the id mixing at per-hunk level? Yes. > > [Footnote] > > *1* It has been a long time since I looked at the code, and I do not > know offhand if "git apply" has such a bug not to diagnose a hunk > for a file for an earlier part that comes later in its input stream > after seeing another hunk for the same file as a bug. If it does > not, perhaps we should. Hmm you are right. For some reason I thought that it does work. I'll drop this part then, less code this way. Thanks! Any more comments before I spin v2? -- MST