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 20:57:16 -0500 Message-ID: <20071130015716.GA15224@coredump.intra.peff.net> References: <20071121171235.GA32233@sigill.intra.peff.net> <7vir3l2a1i.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> <20071129141452.GA32670@coredump.intra.peff.net> <7vmyswsfl6.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 Fri Nov 30 02:57:50 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 1Ixv8Q-0006LF-HX for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Fri, 30 Nov 2007 02:57:42 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S934715AbXK3B5T (ORCPT ); Thu, 29 Nov 2007 20:57:19 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S934711AbXK3B5T (ORCPT ); Thu, 29 Nov 2007 20:57:19 -0500 Received: from 66-23-211-5.clients.speedfactory.net ([66.23.211.5]:4871 "EHLO peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S934628AbXK3B5S (ORCPT ); Thu, 29 Nov 2007 20:57:18 -0500 Received: (qmail 31206 invoked by uid 111); 30 Nov 2007 01:57:17 -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 20:57:17 -0500 Received: by coredump.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Thu, 29 Nov 2007 20:57:16 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <7vmyswsfl6.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Thu, Nov 29, 2007 at 05:10:45PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote: > > 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? > > It just hit me that breaking (as in diffcore-break) a filepair that is a > typechange may yield the same result, and if it works, that would be > conceptually cleaner. After all, a typechange is the ultimate form of > total rewriting (the similarity between the preimage and the postimage > is very low -- even their types are different, let alone contents). > > Compared to that, the rename_used++ in that codepath you touched feels > more magic to me. I have always been a bit confused about diffcore-break, so I am probably misunderstanding what you mean. But are you saying that diffcore-break.c:should_break should return 1 for typechanges? If so, that does not have the desired effect. -Peff