From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff King Subject: Re: Fix a pathological case in git detecting proper renames Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2007 18:52:53 -0500 Message-ID: <20071129235253.GA10261@coredump.intra.peff.net> References: <28BD703B-24D3-41D6-8360-240A884B1305@kernel.crashing.org> <41CB0B7D-5AC1-4703-BA99-21622A410F93@kernel.crashing.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Kumar Gala , Junio C Hamano , Git Mailing List To: Linus Torvalds X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Fri Nov 30 00:53:21 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 1IxtC0-00072S-L2 for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Fri, 30 Nov 2007 00:53:17 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1763541AbXK2Xw5 (ORCPT ); Thu, 29 Nov 2007 18:52:57 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1763539AbXK2Xw5 (ORCPT ); Thu, 29 Nov 2007 18:52:57 -0500 Received: from 66-23-211-5.clients.speedfactory.net ([66.23.211.5]:3590 "EHLO peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1763429AbXK2Xw4 (ORCPT ); Thu, 29 Nov 2007 18:52:56 -0500 Received: (qmail 30032 invoked by uid 111); 29 Nov 2007 23:52:54 -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 18:52:54 -0500 Received: by coredump.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Thu, 29 Nov 2007 18:52:53 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Thu, Nov 29, 2007 at 03:03:06PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote: > This would probably become easier to do with the linear-time hash-based > similarity engine (the stuff Jeff King was working on), but the way the > code is currently structured - with no incremental rename detection at > all, and with all the scoring in one global table - it's pretty painful. I think it will get worse, because you are simultaneously calculating all of the similarity scores bit by bit rather than doing a loop. Though perhaps you mean at the end you will end up with a list of src/dst pairs sorted by score, and you can loop over that. -Peff