From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Steven Grimm Subject: Re: Basename matching during rename/copy detection Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2007 08:37:16 -0700 Message-ID: <467A9B2C.2060907@midwinter.com> References: <20070621030622.GD8477@spearce.org> <200706211050.03519.andyparkins@gmail.com> <200706211344.47560.andyparkins@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Matthieu Moy , Andy Parkins , git@vger.kernel.org, Junio C Hamano To: Johannes Schindelin X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Thu Jun 21 17:37:26 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 1I1Oiq-0002WE-25 for gcvg-git@gmane.org; Thu, 21 Jun 2007 17:37:24 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753514AbXFUPhW (ORCPT ); Thu, 21 Jun 2007 11:37:22 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752856AbXFUPhV (ORCPT ); Thu, 21 Jun 2007 11:37:21 -0400 Received: from 91.86.32.216.static.reverse.layeredtech.com ([216.32.86.91]:40065 "HELO midwinter.com" rhost-flags-OK-FAIL-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1753402AbXFUPhU (ORCPT ); Thu, 21 Jun 2007 11:37:20 -0400 Received: (qmail 27821 invoked from network); 21 Jun 2007 15:37:20 -0000 Comment: DomainKeys? See http://antispam.yahoo.com/domainkeys DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=200606; d=midwinter.com; b=SK88UoOaEzQusZorZtTQOT1/x0kk1EcuCNXpg9qkazLbiPaP2zRoUp/anOEV0Q8X ; Received: from localhost (HELO sgrimm-mbp.local) (koreth@127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 21 Jun 2007 15:37:20 -0000 User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.4 (Macintosh/20070604) In-Reply-To: Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Johannes Schindelin wrote: > Yes. And Git explicitely allows what I call stupid. And yes, those > _identical_ files in the test suit should probably all be folded into > single files, and the places where they are used should reference _that_ > single instance. > Two files that are identical in the current revision have not necessarily been identical from the beginning. Doing what you suggest will cause you to lose the history of all but one of those files. Files can absolutely become identical in the real world. I know that for a fact because it happened to me just this week (see my "Directory renames" message from a few days ago.) Are you seriously suggesting that every time I unpack an update from a third party, I should go through it and see if they have changed any files such that the contents now match another file in my repository, and if so, I should remove all but one of the copies from my repository and have a build system create it instead? Then undo that work when I unpack another update and the files are no longer identical? Well, no, I know you're not suggesting that, but it's the logical conclusion of the "it's stupid to ever have duplicate files" philosophy. While that approach certainly makes life easier for the version control system, it doesn't exactly make life easier for the *developer*, which is kind of the whole point of why we're here. -Steve