This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sourceware.org
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: Hash out a solution for ChangeLog/NEWS at the Cauldron?
- From: Siddhesh Poyarekar <siddhesh at redhat dot com>
- To: Joseph Myers <joseph at codesourcery dot com>
- Cc: libc-alpha at sourceware dot org, carlos at redhat dot com, roland at hack dot frob dot com
- Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2015 19:59:07 +0530
- Subject: Re: Hash out a solution for ChangeLog/NEWS at the Cauldron?
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <20150804173912 dot GC2504 at spoyarek dot pnq dot redhat dot com> <alpine dot DEB dot 2 dot 10 dot 1508041743390 dot 10621 at digraph dot polyomino dot org dot uk> <20150805002648 dot GE2504 at spoyarek dot pnq dot redhat dot com> <alpine dot DEB dot 2 dot 10 dot 1508051104360 dot 7214 at digraph dot polyomino dot org dot uk> <20150805114952 dot GL2504 at spoyarek dot pnq dot redhat dot com> <alpine dot DEB dot 2 dot 10 dot 1508051418580 dot 26234 at digraph dot polyomino dot org dot uk>
On Wed, Aug 05, 2015 at 02:22:17PM +0000, Joseph Myers wrote:
> An emailed patch doesn't have a commit id, assuming you mean the SHA1 hash
> of the commit object generated by git; that depends on the committer email
> and date, not just the author email and date, as well as the complete
> state of the patched tree (not just the files modified by the patch) and
> the parent commit objects. For changes not involving the actual diff
> itself I'd rather leave it to people to see the final commit on glibc-cvs
> (and have the committer update patchwork manually if it can't be smarter
> about detecting what's the same change) rather than having extra emails to
> the list just for the sake of controlling patchwork.
Hmm, then I wonder how patchwork tracks the patches; it can't just be
the sha1sum. I'll do some homework on this and get back to y'all.
Siddhesh