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 20:39:17 +0200 Message-ID: <20140327183917.GA3980@redhat.com> References: <1395912239-29663-1-git-send-email-mst@redhat.com> <20140327175746.GA3853@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 19:39:11 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 1WTFCo-0004by-RY for gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org; Thu, 27 Mar 2014 19:39:11 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756819AbaC0SjG (ORCPT ); Thu, 27 Mar 2014 14:39:06 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:37644 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754922AbaC0SjE (ORCPT ); Thu, 27 Mar 2014 14:39:04 -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 s2RIctBW022692 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Thu, 27 Mar 2014 14:38:55 -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 s2RIcq2Z003630; Thu, 27 Mar 2014 14:38:53 -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 11:03:46AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > "Michael S. Tsirkin" 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 personally have on the chopping > block. Having to deal with more than occurrences of the same > pathname in the input made things in builtin/apply.c unnecessarily > complex and I do not see a real gain for being able to concatenate > two patches and feed it into a single "git apply" invocation. Well - I expect that this will surprise some people: gnu patch accepts this, and it's a natural assumption that it works. There could be tools producing such diffs, too. Anyway - we can drop this from patch-id and git apply at the same time? -- MST