Re: [PATCH 3/2] format-patch: use clear_commit_marks() instead of some adhocery

From: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
Date: Jun 27, 2006, 10:54 UTC
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.63.0606271251440.29667@wbgn013.biozentrum.uni-wuerzburg.de>
In-Reply-To: <46a038f90606270252p2beac88bo3cf7aa8d3845450c@mail.gmail.com>

Hi,

On Tue, 27 Jun 2006, Martin Langhoff wrote:

Show 7 quoted lines

> On 6/27/06, Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de> wrote:
> > 
> > I just cloned your repo, and as far as I can tell, the latest commit is on
> > June 23rd. So your numbers should be the same as mine. But not all are.
> 
> Taht repo is on a machine at work, but it's possible that I've cherry
> picked a new commit onto master that isn't on the publc repo yet.

I hoped that much.

Show 7 quoted lines

> > (Did not test here, since I do not have an old git-format-patch.sh 
> > handy, and am too lazy to get the last version from my git repo.)
> 
> I think I did something like
> 
>  git-cat-file blob v1.3.3:git-format-patch.sh > git-format-patch.sh
>  chmod ugo+x git-format-patch.sh

Yes, I am lazy.

Show 7 quoted lines

> > But anyway, looking at your numbers I take it that the new format-patch
> > with --ignore-if-in-upstream has the same output as the old format-patch,
> > right?
> 
> 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.)

Ciao, Dscho