On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 08:39:17PM +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 11:03:46AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> > "Michael S. Tsirkin" writes:
> >
> > > I started to remove that code, but then I recalled why I did it like
> > > this. There is a good reason. Yes, you can'
On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 11:03:46AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> "Michael S. Tsirkin" writes:
>
> > I started to remove that code, but then I recalled why I did it like
> > this. There is a good reason. Yes, you can't simply reorder hunks just
> > like this. But you can get the same effect by
"Michael S. Tsirkin" writes:
> I started to remove that code, but then I recalled why I did it like
> this. There is a good reason. Yes, you can't simply reorder hunks just
> like this. But you can get the same effect by prefixing the header:
Yes, that is one of the things I personally have o
On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 09:58:41AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> "Michael S. Tsirkin" writes:
>
> > Patch id changes if you reorder hunks in a diff.
>
> If you reorder hunks, the patch should no longer apply [*1*], so a
> feature to make patch-id stable across such move would have no
> practica
On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 09:58:41AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> "Michael S. Tsirkin" writes:
>
> > Patch id changes if you reorder hunks in a diff.
>
> If you reorder hunks, the patch should no longer apply [*1*], so a
> feature to make patch-id stable across such move would have no
> practica
"Michael S. Tsirkin" writes:
> Patch id changes if you reorder hunks in a diff.
If you reorder hunks, the patch should no longer apply [*1*], so a
feature to make patch-id stable across such move would have no
practical use ;-), but I am guessing you meant something else.
Perhaps this is about
6 matches
Mail list logo
