From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Petr Baudis Subject: Re: Handling renames. Date: Sat, 22 Oct 2005 03:51:09 +0200 Message-ID: <20051022015109.GO30889@pasky.or.cz> References: <20051022003733.GA8351@pasky.or.cz> <20051022004743.GN30889@pasky.or.cz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Junio C Hamano , Git Mailing List X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Sat Oct 22 03:52:59 2005 Return-path: Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by ciao.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1ET8YC-0001rq-HW for gcvg-git@gmane.org; Sat, 22 Oct 2005 03:52:01 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932117AbVJVBvN (ORCPT ); Fri, 21 Oct 2005 21:51:13 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S932118AbVJVBvN (ORCPT ); Fri, 21 Oct 2005 21:51:13 -0400 Received: from w241.dkm.cz ([62.24.88.241]:39652 "EHLO machine.or.cz") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932117AbVJVBvM (ORCPT ); Fri, 21 Oct 2005 21:51:12 -0400 Received: (qmail 2823 invoked by uid 2001); 22 Oct 2005 03:51:09 +0200 To: Linus Torvalds Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-message-flag: Outlook : A program to spread viri, but it can do mail too. User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.10i Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: > Every single thing that said that renames were a bad idea to track > when git started is still equally true. It'd be good to clarify whether we discuss whether the idea of tracking renames is good or bad, or whether having the user explicitly specify renames is better than figuring that out automagically. Your first comment would indicate the former, but the rest of your reply the latter. > You can follow renames _afterwards_. I can - crudely, but what's the point, if the user is dying to give me the information. > Git tracks contents. And I think we've proven that figuring out renames > after-the-fact from those contents is not only doable, but very well > supported already. It's unreliable and it's slow (well, perhaps I should get some numbers to back that out, but given how it is done I take it for granted). Does not sound too "very well" to me. > I'm convinced that git handles renames better than any other SCM ever. > Exactly because we figure it out when it matters. It matters at least every time you show per-file history and every time you merge cross the rename. I think that can be both pretty common if you ever do the rename. That means you can do an expensive guess every time you hit that, and the guess can get it wrong, in which case there is no way around that and you lose. -- Petr "Pasky" Baudis Stuff: http://pasky.or.cz/ VI has two modes: the one in which it beeps and the one in which it doesn't.