From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.1 (2015-04-28) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS31976 209.132.180.0/23 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.6 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.1 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id D4E8A1F597 for ; Tue, 24 Jul 2018 19:16:43 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S2388552AbeGXUYg (ORCPT ); Tue, 24 Jul 2018 16:24:36 -0400 Received: from [195.159.176.226] ([195.159.176.226]:39299 "EHLO blaine.gmane.org" rhost-flags-FAIL-FAIL-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S2388471AbeGXUYf (ORCPT ); Tue, 24 Jul 2018 16:24:35 -0400 Received: from list by blaine.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1fi2lQ-00079l-DD for git@vger.kernel.org; Tue, 24 Jul 2018 21:14:28 +0200 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: git@vger.kernel.org From: Beat Bolli Subject: Re: [PATCH v1] config.c: fix msvc compile error Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2018 21:16:33 +0200 Message-ID: <559fda9d-80b4-64db-e8a4-a886902f28c3@drbeat.li> References: <20180724153010.6693-1-git@jeffhostetler.com> <235ae68c-f764-ba3a-c641-ef5f99507564@drbeat.li> <8fd2fe53-ff42-5e21-a485-a38c97331b9c@drbeat.li> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.13; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.9.1 Cc: git@jeffhostetler.com, git@vger.kernel.org, peff@peff.net, me@ttaylorr.com, Jeff Hostetler In-Reply-To: Content-Language: en-US Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org On 24.07.18 20:50, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Beat Bolli writes: > >> On 24.07.18 20:22, Junio C Hamano wrote: >> >>>> This was already fixed (differently) in >>>> <20180705183445.30901-1-dev+git@drbeat.li>. >>> >>> Thanks for saving me from having to dig the list archive myself. >>> Yes, it is already applied to the tip of the topic that originally >>> caused the breakage. >>> >> Just a general question: >> >> Is it OK to refer to patches on pu with the Message-ID, or would you >> prefer the commit hash? The hash changes whenever you recreate pu, >> doesn't it? > > Either is fine in practice. The commits themselves on a topic > branch that is not yet in 'next' usually stay the same once the tip > of 'pu' that contains them gets published. Even though I often use > "git rebase -i", "git commit --amend", etc. to fix up posted patches > while turning them into commits on topic branches, I usually stop > doing so once I push out day's integration result. > > Until a new version of the series is posted to replace them on the > topic branch, that is. But at that point we are talking about new > patches with different message-ids that got turned into different > commit objects, so either commit object name or message id that > refer to older iteration would still name the same old version, and > new names would refer to the same new version. > Ok, thanks!