From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS31976 209.132.180.0/23 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.9 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id DEC9E20954 for ; Fri, 24 Nov 2017 07:51:11 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752045AbdKXHvJ (ORCPT ); Fri, 24 Nov 2017 02:51:09 -0500 Received: from pb-smtp2.pobox.com ([64.147.108.71]:55415 "EHLO sasl.smtp.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751869AbdKXHvI (ORCPT ); Fri, 24 Nov 2017 02:51:08 -0500 Received: from sasl.smtp.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 59AFFB7D90; Fri, 24 Nov 2017 02:51:08 -0500 (EST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; s=sasl; bh=HYJO8IiH5rM5OP6JMY+blM5pxHg=; b=Rh2JlN gF0JCV5Hb80CqnouBd7U55iVQTbZkSqKMbYmPZqF7qx2UCENgrJACW9XkiA7hlGc gjOeKwAYNp5SG81k6KBUBfGMC9QVZ3lwemoeYfAnGt5VMLfXcz3Jwe0/bTXK8kCp l6alioGgn4ETcsfhn39YobEo0H7f093C8ssJg= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; q=dns; s=sasl; b=Oe2MaKBTaEe6allvgvREfWR/46pxfz2e uTd5SctGl+1FoALOdyCDANvWJ6t3pFX9bovcuMbEcjJYwezEqDMVi+xypmak8pFp BSsRtqRo0MpCPloIcJvUVdS+k/MtixypurEICTlfrOrczXDF2qYqDl3hHM5XUcfZ Xo+jWg1aB8A= Received: from pb-smtp2.nyi.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 51DEAB7D8E; Fri, 24 Nov 2017 02:51:08 -0500 (EST) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [104.132.0.95]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id CA556B7D8D; Fri, 24 Nov 2017 02:51:07 -0500 (EST) From: Junio C Hamano To: Eugeniu Rosca Cc: Subject: Re: Make patch-id more flexible? References: <20171124073327.GA15188@vmlxhi-102.adit-jv.com> Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2017 16:51:06 +0900 In-Reply-To: <20171124073327.GA15188@vmlxhi-102.adit-jv.com> (Eugeniu Rosca's message of "Fri, 24 Nov 2017 08:33:27 +0100") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.2.50 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 3AFA1FB4-D0EC-11E7-ABFA-575F0C78B957-77302942!pb-smtp2.pobox.com Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Eugeniu Rosca writes: > file-names. Here comes my actual question. Would it be conceptually fine > to implement some `git patch-id` parameter, which would allow ignoring > the file-names (or reducing those to their `basename`) before computing > the patch id? Or would it break the concept of patch id (which shouldn't > accept variations)? My gut feeling is that a tool like that would be fine as long as it is local to your organization and is not called "git patch-id"; it may be useful in the situation you described, but as you mention above, it feels that it is differnt from what a patch-id is.