[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <56CD0A1D.9050207@zytor.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Feb 2016 17:40:45 -0800
From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>
Cc: Junio C Hamano <gitster@...ox.com>,
Fengguang Wu <fengguang.wu@...el.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>,
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 02/23/2016 01:49 PM, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>
> So I could really respect a patch header line that said:
> tree abcdef0123456789...0123456789abcdef
>
> Where the numbers where the truncated tree hash before and after a patch
> was applied. That would seem to give a little bit of extra sanity
> checking in the application of git diffs as well.
>
I would rather have the untruncated base tree ID. The truncated file
IDs already provide the verification component, and it is *way* cheaper
to search for an untruncated ID.
-hpa
Powered by blists - more mailing lists