From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff King Subject: Re: [RFC] use typechange as rename source Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2007 09:14:53 -0500 Message-ID: <20071129141452.GA32670@coredump.intra.peff.net> References: <20071121171235.GA32233@sigill.intra.peff.net> <7vir3l2a1i.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: git@vger.kernel.org To: Junio C Hamano X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Thu Nov 29 15:15:16 2007 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1IxkAd-0005rX-42 for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Thu, 29 Nov 2007 15:15:15 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755414AbXK2OO4 (ORCPT ); Thu, 29 Nov 2007 09:14:56 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1755098AbXK2OO4 (ORCPT ); Thu, 29 Nov 2007 09:14:56 -0500 Received: from 66-23-211-5.clients.speedfactory.net ([66.23.211.5]:1406 "EHLO peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754684AbXK2OOz (ORCPT ); Thu, 29 Nov 2007 09:14:55 -0500 Received: (qmail 19403 invoked by uid 111); 29 Nov 2007 14:14:54 -0000 Received: from coredump.intra.peff.net (HELO coredump.intra.peff.net) (10.0.0.2) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.32) with SMTP; Thu, 29 Nov 2007 09:14:54 -0500 Received: by coredump.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Thu, 29 Nov 2007 09:14:53 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <7vir3l2a1i.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Wed, Nov 28, 2007 at 04:02:49PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote: > I do not think this is a risky change; it won't add too many rename > sources we did not consider traditionally (typechanges are usually rare > event anyway). OK. What next? Did the patch I sent make sense? Do you want a cleaned up version with a commit message and signoff, or does it need work? > You are copying the source to elsewhere and then completely rewriting it > (even making it into a different type), so I do not think 'copied' is so > unreasonable. An alternative would be to say you renamed it and then > created something totally different, which would also be reasonable. I am inclined to leave it as 'copied' for now because it makes some sense and is the least invasive change (and is independent of adding the rename source, so we can always change it later). -Peff