[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160223093221.GC7150@wfg-t540p.sh.intel.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Feb 2016 17:32:21 +0800
From: Fengguang Wu <fengguang.wu@...el.com>
To: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Cc: Junio C Hamano <gitster@...ox.com>,
Xiaolong Ye <xiaolong.ye@...el.com>, git@...r.kernel.org,
ying.huang@...el.com, philip.li@...el.com, julie.du@...el.com,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC/PATCH 1/1] format-patch: add an option to record base tree
info
On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 01:23:19AM -0800, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> On 02/23/16 01:17, Fengguang Wu wrote:
> >
> > However we are facing a new situation: in test robot POV, IMHO there
> > are values to test exactly the same tree as the patch submitter.
> > Otherwise the robot risks
> >
> > - false negative: failing to apply and test some patches
> > - false positive: sending wrong bug reports due to guessed wrong base tree
> >
>
> Wouldn't the important part here be the git hash, rather than the tree?
> If you have the same hash then it by definition is the same contents?
Yes. Sorry for the partial wording! We should be talking about the
same thing: the hash of the tree object. The commit SHA1 will also
do the work.
Thanks,
Fengguang
Powered by blists - more mailing lists