Stephen Boyd writes:
> Quoting Junio C Hamano (2019-05-06 21:38:24)
>> Stephen Boyd writes:
>>
>> > I wonder if we need to make some other sort of form of
>> > "prerequisite-patch-id:" here and let that be a legacy form of the
>> > patch-id so that users know that they have a fixed version of t
Quoting Junio C Hamano (2019-05-06 21:38:24)
> Stephen Boyd writes:
>
> > I wonder if we need to make some other sort of form of
> > "prerequisite-patch-id:" here and let that be a legacy form of the
> > patch-id so that users know that they have a fixed version of this code?
> > Maybe "prerequis
Stephen Boyd writes:
> I wonder if we need to make some other sort of form of
> "prerequisite-patch-id:" here and let that be a legacy form of the
> patch-id so that users know that they have a fixed version of this code?
> Maybe "prerequisite-stable-patch-id:"? Or we don't have to care because
>
We weren't flushing the context each time we processed a hunk in the
patch-id generation code in diff.c, but we were doing that when we
generated "stable" patch-ids with the 'patch-id' tool. Let's port that
similar logic over from patch-id.c into diff.c so we can get the same
hash when we're genera
4 matches
Mail list logo
