From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Pete Wyckoff Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] git-p4: Add copy detection support Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2011 08:32:23 -0500 Message-ID: <20110212133223.GA12432@arf.padd.com> References: <1296429563-18390-1-git-send-email-vitor.hda@gmail.com> <1296429563-18390-2-git-send-email-vitor.hda@gmail.com> <20110206002547.GB31245@arf.padd.com> <20110206220546.GA9024@mew.padd.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: git@vger.kernel.org To: Vitor Antunes X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Sat Feb 12 14:32:51 2011 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1PoFal-0004ns-7j for gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org; Sat, 12 Feb 2011 14:32:51 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753224Ab1BLNcr (ORCPT ); Sat, 12 Feb 2011 08:32:47 -0500 Received: from honk.padd.com ([74.3.171.149]:36155 "EHLO honk.padd.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751940Ab1BLNcp (ORCPT ); Sat, 12 Feb 2011 08:32:45 -0500 Received: from arf.padd.com (pool-71-111-208-86.rlghnc.dsl-w.verizon.net [71.111.208.86]) by honk.padd.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B3DFF1C78; Sat, 12 Feb 2011 05:32:41 -0800 (PST) Received: by arf.padd.com (Postfix, from userid 7770) id CFC8331ADE; Sat, 12 Feb 2011 08:32:23 -0500 (EST) Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: vitor.hda@gmail.com wrote on Sat, 12 Feb 2011 00:29 +0000: > Originally the code always opened the files for editing just in case > there was a patch to be applied late,r. This makes sense, because git > can detect a rename (or copy) even if the files differ. But doing this > would create an "unclean" integration in the revision graph. So, what > I thought was "if we have available the SHA of the origin and > destination files in diff-tree output why not compare them before > opening the file for editing?" And that was the only purpose for this > comparison. I get what you are saying and it makes sense to fix this. I think you are on the right track, and I can't see the problem in the code. Side note: p4 installations can make client SubmitOptions have "revertunchanged" to avoid these annoying null integrations. -- Pete