Home page logo

wireshark logo Wireshark mailing list archives

Re: Recent changes in composite TVB (extra changes beside move)
From: Bálint Réczey <balint () balintreczey hu>
Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2013 11:28:20 +0200

2013/8/1 Graham Bloice <graham.bloice () trihedral com>:
On 31 July 2013 22:42, Jakub Zawadzki <darkjames-ws () darkjames pl> wrote:


--- 9d519b5659aa8c0c4aa984bc6169909eb31be7d6_2.c        2013-07-31
22:50:46.144101741 +0200
+++ 9d519b5659aa8c0c4aa984bc6169909eb31be7d6_1.c        2013-07-31
22:50:36.800818660 +0200

Totally off-topic rant, but this is an example of git annoying me.  Are
those file identifying hashes meaningful outside of the originators repo?
They mean nothing to me.
Totally off-topic answer ;-):
If the commit is already know to you because it is in a central repo like:
of it is in your repo which you shared with Jakub you can be sure of
its content.
In case of svn, you can refer to a revision number, but if Jakub used
an internal svn repo with similar
amount of commits you could not tell r500210's content.
Since the hash is generated from the commit and its history
practically there can't be two commits with the
same hash id but with different content or history.

BTW I don't know how Jakub generated the patch, it is not a standard git patch.

Sent via:    Wireshark-dev mailing list <wireshark-dev () wireshark org>
Archives:    http://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev
Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev
             mailto:wireshark-dev-request () wireshark org?subject=unsubscribe

  By Date           By Thread  

Current thread:
[ Nmap | Sec Tools | Mailing Lists | Site News | About/Contact | Advertising | Privacy ]