From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/3] patch-id: document new behaviour Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2014 23:42:05 +0300 Message-ID: <20140331204205.GB12403@redhat.com> References: <1396202583-2572-1-git-send-email-mst@redhat.com> <1396202583-2572-2-git-send-email-mst@redhat.com> <20140331192604.GF12208@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, sunshine@sunshineco.com, jrnieder@gmail.com, peff@peff.net To: Junio C Hamano X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Mon Mar 31 22:41:52 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 1WUj1j-0007ZN-QX for gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org; Mon, 31 Mar 2014 22:41:52 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1750974AbaCaUlr (ORCPT ); Mon, 31 Mar 2014 16:41:47 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:49731 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750777AbaCaUlr (ORCPT ); Mon, 31 Mar 2014 16:41:47 -0400 Received: from int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.11]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id s2VKfb3B018086 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Mon, 31 Mar 2014 16:41:37 -0400 Received: from redhat.com (vpn1-7-154.ams2.redhat.com [10.36.7.154]) by int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with SMTP id s2VKfZBL001446; Mon, 31 Mar 2014 16:41:36 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.67 on 10.5.11.11 Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Mon, Mar 31, 2014 at 12:54:46PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > "Michael S. Tsirkin" 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" 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