Gentoo Logo
Gentoo Spaceship




Note: Due to technical difficulties, the Archives are currently not up to date. GMANE provides an alternative service for most mailing lists.
c.f. bug 424647
List Archive: gentoo-dev
Navigation:
Lists: gentoo-dev: < Prev By Thread Next > < Prev By Date Next >
Headers:
To: gentoo-dev@g.o
From: Michał Górny <mgorny@g.o>
Subject: Re: Re: Portage Git migration - clean cut or git-cvsserver
Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2012 13:44:39 +0200
On Fri, 1 Jun 2012 23:23:34 +1200
Kent Fredric <kentfredric@...> wrote:

> On 1 June 2012 22:54, Rich Freeman <rich0@g.o> wrote:
> > Rebasing re-applies the same diff to the new head to give you a new
> > set of commits.  When you apply the same diff to a different parent
> > you end up with a different tree, so the tree signature won't be the
> > same either.
> 
> Not nessecarily. Given that :
> 
>  a file with a given content has a fixed SHA
> A tree is just a list of these SHA's , and that in turn is referenced
> by SHA, so if 2 commits have identical file content, their 'tree' sha
> will be the same ( in theory ).
> 
> So that means, if you perform a rebase, assuming the filesystem looks
> the same as it did before the rebase, it will have the same SHA1 for
> the tree, regardless of the process of how it got to be that way.

I don't think that 'not necessarily' makes any difference here. Maybe
in our particular case this is not as likely as with regular source
code tree but while rebasing you can hit conflicts. And then files
start to change...

-- 
Best regards,
Michał Górny
Attachment:
signature.asc (PGP signature)
References:
Re: Portage Git migration - clean cut or git-cvsserver
-- Alexey Shvetsov
Re: Re: Portage Git migration - clean cut or git-cvsserver
-- Dirkjan Ochtman
Re: Re: Portage Git migration - clean cut or git-cvsserver
-- Rich Freeman
Re: Portage Git migration - clean cut or git-cvsserver
-- Duncan
Re: Re: Portage Git migration - clean cut or git-cvsserver
-- Robin H. Johnson
Re: Re: Portage Git migration - clean cut or git-cvsserver
-- Dirkjan Ochtman
Re: Re: Portage Git migration - clean cut or git-cvsserver
-- Robin H. Johnson
Re: Re: Portage Git migration - clean cut or git-cvsserver
-- Rich Freeman
Re: Re: Portage Git migration - clean cut or git-cvsserver
-- William Hubbs
Re: Re: Portage Git migration - clean cut or git-cvsserver
-- Michał Górny
Re: Re: Portage Git migration - clean cut or git-cvsserver
-- Alexey Shvetsov
Re: Re: Portage Git migration - clean cut or git-cvsserver
-- Kent Fredric
Re: Re: Portage Git migration - clean cut or git-cvsserver
-- Rich Freeman
Re: Re: Portage Git migration - clean cut or git-cvsserver
-- Kent Fredric
Re: Re: Portage Git migration - clean cut or git-cvsserver
-- Rich Freeman
Re: Re: Portage Git migration - clean cut or git-cvsserver
-- Kent Fredric
Navigation:
Lists: gentoo-dev: < Prev By Thread Next > < Prev By Date Next >
Previous by thread:
Re: Re: Portage Git migration - clean cut or git-cvsserver
Next by thread:
Re: Re: Portage Git migration - clean cut or git-cvsserver
Previous by date:
m68k status
Next by date:
Re: Re: Portage Git migration - clean cut or git-cvsserver


Updated Jun 29, 2012

Summary: Archive of the gentoo-dev mailing list.

Donate to support our development efforts.

Copyright 2001-2013 Gentoo Foundation, Inc. Questions, Comments? Contact us.