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=-3.9 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,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 4FF381F506 for ; Wed, 21 Sep 2022 19:16:50 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: dcvr.yhbt.net; dkim=pass (1024-bit key; unprotected) header.d=pobox.com header.i=@pobox.com header.b="K6Z4/dL1"; dkim-atps=neutral Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S229759AbiIUTQs (ORCPT ); Wed, 21 Sep 2022 15:16:48 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:57230 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S229453AbiIUTQq (ORCPT ); Wed, 21 Sep 2022 15:16:46 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp21.pobox.com (pb-smtp21.pobox.com [173.228.157.53]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 193FF7F24B for ; Wed, 21 Sep 2022 12:16:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pb-smtp21.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp21.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 912631B276B; Wed, 21 Sep 2022 15:16:45 -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:message-id:mime-version:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; s=sasl; bh=5+D1ypJn4tzhvm2frH+J9D8BK YHGqf0Kc3MY2ZPf4NU=; b=K6Z4/dL1xPuiu+cCVMJR/eMl8nNI8iIWSE7FbeIZ4 zQfZp1houk7jnCUSeblaWT8TqQ+JU4JCSOd/gfyH2CoC6er7XMhez0FrvHApHRI0 EF2oA+RojmmXCgAoLbh+hRx+bAG4TWREe/Z00MRYrKFb/xogew0NFndZNNQyO/I2 wk= Received: from pb-smtp21.sea.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp21.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8A4BD1B276A; Wed, 21 Sep 2022 15:16:45 -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 2D3EC1B2766; Wed, 21 Sep 2022 15:16:42 -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 0/2] update internal patch-id to use "stable" algorithm References: Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2022 12:16:40 -0700 Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/28.1 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 X-Pobox-Relay-ID: ECD2E0F0-39E1-11ED-AD22-B31D44D1D7AA-77302942!pb-smtp21.pobox.com Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org "Jerry Zhang via GitGitGadget" writes: > Internal usage of patch-id in rebase / cherry-pick doesn't persist > patch-ids, so there's no need to specifically invoke the unstable varia= nt. > > This allows the unstable logic to be cleaned up. While all of that may be true, two things are not explained. =20 * Why does "unstable" need to be "cleaned up"? Is that too dirty in what way? * If internal usage does not persist patch-ids generated by the machinery, why is it bad to be using the unstable variant? A na=C3=AFve expectation would be to make sure you use stable one if you want a future recomputation to give you the same result, but the opposite does not have to be always true.