Code review comment for lp:~lifeless/python-oops-datedir-repo/0.0.9

So thats a really good question.

We have to replace report['id'] in the copy we write, or else its not visible to someone reading the report later.

I've noticed a defect in the branch - we don't inherit the id with the lognamer based id allocator - I'll fix that (we won't use the combination, but someone may) and push that up.

I had the thing in my head that I needed to eject any existing id before hashing, but you're quite right, we can hash with an existing id in there and its no less unique - though if we are not inheriting the id:
 - someone publishes the same oops twice with differing ids, we'd end up writing it twice to disk - big deal
 - publishing the same oops with no id in it would behave as we do today
 - publishing different oopses with the same id will behave as we do today

I'll have a fiddle when I fix the defect and see how it looks.

Thanks,
Rob