Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH] checkpatch.pl: Relax commit ID check to allow more than 12 chars | From | Joe Perches <> | Date | Mon, 06 Feb 2023 03:09:26 -0800 |
| |
On Mon, 2023-02-06 at 09:38 +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > Hi Joe, > > On Sat, Feb 4, 2023 at 5:59 PM Joe Perches <joe@perches.com> wrote: > > On Sun, 2023-01-29 at 09:52 -0800, Joe Perches wrote: > > > On Sun, 2023-01-29 at 13:34 +0100, Jonathan Neuschäfer wrote: > > > > By now, `git log --pretty=%h` (on my copy of linux.git) prints commit > > > > hashes with 13 digits, because of the number of objects. > > > > > > > > Relax the rule in checkpatch.pl to allow a few more digits (up to 16). > > > > > > NAK without updating the process docs first. > > > > btw: it looks like 12 will still be sufficient for awhile yet > > > > $ git count > > total 1154908 > > Hmm, Ubuntu git too old?
Don't think so
$ git --version git version 2.39.1
More likely just using Linus' tree and not a development tree with a bunch of branches.
I've got a -next tree with history back to next-20151106 with a bunch of missing dates because I don't fetch it every day. It has:
$ git tag | grep next | wc -l 1134
There I get:
$ git -c core.abbrev=5 log --pretty=format:%h | \ perl -nE 'chomp;say length' | sort | uniq -c | sort -n -k2 6 5 542082 6 568573 7 51124 8 3249 9 217 10 14 11 1 12
> I've been using core.abbrev=16 for a while, and some maintainers > reject my patches with Fixes: tags because of that...
Perhaps because that's not the documented format?
> Is it really worthwhile to save on the number of hexits, making lookup > of some commits more inconvenient? > > Note that while "git show edb9b8" suggests edb9b8f[...], > gitweb says bad object id: > https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/?id=edb9b8
hmm. Not here.
$ git show edb9b8 tree edb9b8
Kconfig Makefile fmvj18x_cs.c
| |