Re: [RFC] use typechange as rename source

[Jeff King <peff@peff.net>]

On Sun, Dec 02, 2007 at 11:15:40AM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:

> > @@ -250,6 +250,7 @@ static void wt_status_print_updated(struct wt_status *s)
> > +	rev.diffopt.break_opt = 0;
> 
> I have to wonder how much this is going to make things worse in the real
> world, although I agree in the "as we already spend cycles for
> detect_rename why not" sense.
> 
> With the recent change from Alex not to run status when not interactive,
> it probably does not matter.  If we are going to spawn an editor, we are
> dealing with human interaction and even -B -M should not be too bad.

I had more or less the same thinking, but I don't have any real-world
numbers. I would be curious to see averages on how diffcore-break
compares to diffcore-rename. Just thinking about it, it seems intuitive
that breaking would always be cheaper, which means that adding "-B" to
"-M" won't have a significant performance impact.

-Peff