From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS3215 2.6.0.0/16 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.8 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from out1.vger.email (out1.vger.email [IPv6:2620:137:e000::1:20]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id E79671F403 for ; Fri, 14 Oct 2022 21:25:55 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: dcvr.yhbt.net; dkim=pass (1024-bit key; unprotected) header.d=pobox.com header.i=@pobox.com header.b="Jy1SvGhO"; dkim-atps=neutral Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S230034AbiJNVZN (ORCPT ); Fri, 14 Oct 2022 17:25:13 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:59104 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S230035AbiJNVYu (ORCPT ); Fri, 14 Oct 2022 17:24:50 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp21.pobox.com (pb-smtp21.pobox.com [173.228.157.53]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9798DDA2 for ; Fri, 14 Oct 2022 14:24:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pb-smtp21.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp21.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AF7521C2366; Fri, 14 Oct 2022 17:24:19 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; s=sasl; bh=DzBGat7vUZLjVxscjg8FFvZFaP2sw8Ut4Iy76F AIAxQ=; b=Jy1SvGhOQBAILheCMh9vvr9Zk6xzMrP2P8TRrj+QzB8KWAPta0i72/ VD2lZ+DdcBk0JTL6ZctbwPM8I7QuRJEPJ6Rsg0OsSpanDWQCt7g/PHnLniiO4Goe UDHOqgHpK02E3HTcFTMmH2ETzdqw1Dae40Sv2bI2U89dNo0bxKZps= Received: from pb-smtp21.sea.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp21.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A8D2C1C2365; Fri, 14 Oct 2022 17:24:19 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [34.83.5.33]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp21.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id DCB9A1C2362; Fri, 14 Oct 2022 17:24:16 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) From: Junio C Hamano To: "Jerry Zhang via GitGitGadget" Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, Jerry Zhang Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 5/7] builtin: patch-id: add --include-whitespace as a command mode References: Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2022 14:24:15 -0700 In-Reply-To: (Jerry Zhang via GitGitGadget's message of "Fri, 14 Oct 2022 08:56:42 +0000") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/28.1 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 8EE40FF0-4C06-11ED-BE3A-B31D44D1D7AA-77302942!pb-smtp21.pobox.com Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org "Jerry Zhang via GitGitGadget" writes: > +--include-whitespace:: > + Use the "stable" algorithm described below and also don't strip whitespace > + from lines when calculating the patch-id. > + > + This is the default if patchid.includeWhitespace is true and implies > + patchid.stable. This seems very much orthogonal to "--stable/--unstable. Because the "--stable" variant is more expensive than "--unstable", I am not sure why such an implication is a good thing to have. Why can we not have --include-whitespace --stable --include-whitespace --unstable both combinations valid?