From: Martin Langhoff <martin.langhoff@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2006 11:09:28 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/2] format-patch: use clear_commit_marks() instead of some adhocery
Message-ID: <46a038f90606270409t6724b105h6c56d55138fd58c5@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.63.0606271251440.29667@wbgn013.biozentrum.uni-wuerzburg.de>

On 6/27/06, Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de> wrote:
> > It does, but it may be "right" even though it's not realising that
> > some of the patches were cherry picked. git-cherry doesn't either. So
> > that algorythm isn't so hot in this case :-/
>
> What do you mean? Is the patch-id of the cherry-picked different? (If
> there was a conflict which was manually resolved, I think there is no way
> we can detect that that patch was cherry-picked, but if it applied
> cleanly, the patch-id should be equal both in upstream and downstream.)

I'll look more into it tomorrow at work. Knowing the codebase, some of
the patches should be rather obvious, GNU patch recognises them as
'already applied', but they may be slightly different in ways that
break the hashing. Maybe. I'll play with git-cherry to see, I assume
that you've copied the logic from there.

cheers,


martin