lists  /  announce  owl-users  owl-dev  john-users  john-dev  passwdqc-users  yescrypt  popa3d-users  /  oss-security  kernel-hardening  musl  sabotage  tlsify  passwords  /  crypt-dev  xvendor  /  Bugtraq  Full-Disclosure  linux-kernel  linux-netdev  linux-ext4  linux-hardening  PHC 
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:   Sat, 13 May 2017 11:35:26 +0200 (CEST)
From:   Thomas Gleixner <>
To:     "Eric W. Biederman" <>
cc:     Rob Landley <>,
        Michael Ellerman <>,
        Linus Torvalds <>,
        Al Viro <>,
        Oleg Nesterov <>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <>
Subject: Re: Is there an recommended way to refer to bitkeepr commits?

On Fri, 12 May 2017, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> Which leaves me perplexed.  The hashes from tglx's current tree:
> on and the hashes in your full history tree differ.
> Given that they are in theory the same tree this distrubs me.
> Case in point in the commit connected to:
> "[PATCH] linux-2.5.66-signal-cleanup.patch"
> in tglx's tree is:       da334d91ff7001d234863fc7692de1ff90bed57a

That's the proper sha1 for my tree. I jsut verified it against the original
tree which I still have in my archive.

> *scratches my head*
> Something appears to have changed somewhere.

Correct. That full history git rewrote the commits in my bitkeeper import.


  commit 7a2deb32924142696b8174cdf9b38cd72a11fc96
  Author: Linus Torvalds <>
  Date:   Mon Feb 4 17:40:40 2002 -0800

    Import changeset


  commit 26245c315da55330cb25dbfdd80be62db41dedb2
  Author: linus1 <>
  Date:   Thu Jan 4 12:00:00 2001 -0600

    Import changeset

and as a consequence all other commits have different shas as well.




Powered by blists - more mailing lists