From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "H. Peter Anvin" Subject: Re: Handling renames. Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2005 11:49:17 -0700 Message-ID: <425EBB2D.3060508@zytor.com> References: <1113501260.27227.26.camel@hades.cambridge.redhat.com> <425EB4AE.4010700@zytor.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: David Woodhouse , git@vger.kernel.org, James Bottomley X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Thu Apr 14 20:47:02 2005 Return-path: Received: from vger.kernel.org ([12.107.209.244]) by ciao.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1DM9MS-0001o4-AB for gcvg-git@gmane.org; Thu, 14 Apr 2005 20:46:44 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261542AbVDNSt6 (ORCPT ); Thu, 14 Apr 2005 14:49:58 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261531AbVDNSt6 (ORCPT ); Thu, 14 Apr 2005 14:49:58 -0400 Received: from terminus.zytor.com ([209.128.68.124]:42382 "EHLO terminus.zytor.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261542AbVDNStb (ORCPT ); Thu, 14 Apr 2005 14:49:31 -0400 Received: from [172.27.0.18] (c-67-169-23-106.hsd1.ca.comcast.net [67.169.23.106]) (authenticated bits=0) by terminus.zytor.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id j3EInHq7010382 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 14 Apr 2005 11:49:18 -0700 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.2-1.3.2 (X11/20050324) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en To: Linus Torvalds In-Reply-To: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.9 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,BAYES_00 autolearn=ham version=3.0.2 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.2 (2004-11-16) on terminus.zytor.com Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Linus Torvalds wrote: > > On Thu, 14 Apr 2005, H. Peter Anvin wrote: > >>Although Linus is correct in that an SCM doesn't *have* to handle this, >>it really feels like shooting for mediocracy to me. We might as well >>design it right from the beginning. > > No. git is not an SCM. it's a filesystem designed to _host_ an SCM, and > that _is_ doing it right from the beginning. > > Keep the abstractions clean. Do _not_ get confused into thinking that git > is an SCM. If you think of it that way, you'll end up with crap you can't > think about. > > And at a filesystem layer, "rename" already exists. It's moving an object > to a new name in a tree. git already does that very well, thank you very > much. > > But a filesystem rename is _not_ the same thing as an SCM rename. An SCM > rename is built on top of a filesystem rename, but it has its own issues > that may or may not make sense for the filesystem. > I wasn't referring to git per se, I was referring to the hosted SCM. -hpa