[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <aa7337c0af524751d1f9d738b10d1e2d4e1199d8.camel@perches.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2019 11:41:18 -0800
From: Joe Perches <golf@...ches.com>
To: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@...il.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Jacob Keller <jacob.e.keller@...el.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Jeff Kirsher <jeffrey.t.kirsher@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Documentation/process: hardcoded core.abbrev considered
harmful!
On Thu, 2018-12-20 at 01:01 +0100, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:
> Stop recommending that core.abbrev=12 be hardcoded when referring to
> kernel commits, and instead rely on the git's default abbreviation.
Nothing happened to this patch and there was no reply to
it as far as I can tell.
This may be sensible for future git versions, but perhaps
there should be a different abbrev control added and the
kernel should enable that.
> As an aside I have upcoming git.git patches so you'll be able to set
> core.abbbrev to e.g. +1 to get "13" now, "14" when it rolls over at
> ~16 million etc. Maybe that'll be a good fit for projects like
> linux.git that want more future-proof abbreviated SHAs than most.
Will '$ git config --get core.abbrev' return a specific
number in that case?
(not +1 and not blank as current if unspecified)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists