From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Sam Vilain Subject: Re: Directory renames (was Re: blame follows renames, but log doesn't) Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2007 08:18:22 +1200 Message-ID: <46798B8E.6040103@vilain.net> References: <46a038f90706181810p716f914al4d9abba5bfe7eb5@mail.gmail.com> <20070619071916.GC9177@thunk.org> <4677A7EF.500@midwinter.com> <4678204C.6050409@midwinter.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Steven Grimm , Git Mailing List X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Wed Jun 20 22:18:48 2007 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1I16dX-0003om-Ko for gcvg-git@gmane.org; Wed, 20 Jun 2007 22:18:43 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751124AbXFTUSm (ORCPT ); Wed, 20 Jun 2007 16:18:42 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751011AbXFTUSl (ORCPT ); Wed, 20 Jun 2007 16:18:41 -0400 Received: from watts.utsl.gen.nz ([202.78.240.73]:33311 "EHLO magnus.utsl.gen.nz" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750746AbXFTUSk (ORCPT ); Wed, 20 Jun 2007 16:18:40 -0400 Received: by magnus.utsl.gen.nz (Postfix, from userid 65534) id BEA9913A4FC; Thu, 21 Jun 2007 08:18:39 +1200 (NZST) Received: from [192.168.1.2] (203-97-235-49.cable.telstraclear.net [203.97.235.49]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by magnus.utsl.gen.nz (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2B1C413A4F0; Thu, 21 Jun 2007 08:18:36 +1200 (NZST) User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.4 (X11/20060615) In-Reply-To: <4678204C.6050409@midwinter.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.94.0.0 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.2 (2004-11-16) on mail.magnus.utsl.gen.nz X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.4 required=5.0 tests=SPF_HELO_FAIL autolearn=no version=3.0.2 Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Steven Grimm wrote: > Hope that's illuminating or at least interesting to someone. I didn't review your test cases in detail, but they seemed to suffer from what I call "over-trivialization"; the heuristic methods don't work very well for these non-real-world test cases because they're not long enough. Are you confident that these deficiencies are still there with longer examples? Sam.