From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Chris Shoemaker Subject: Re: Adding Git to Better SCM Initiative : Comparison Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2007 11:50:52 -0500 Message-ID: <20071210165052.GA22327@pe.Belkin> References: <200712101357.49325.jnareb@gmail.com> <87ve76mwos.fsf@mid.deneb.enyo.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: git@vger.kernel.org To: Florian Weimer X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Mon Dec 10 17:57:36 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 1J1lwl-0005lu-6L for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Mon, 10 Dec 2007 17:57:35 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754075AbXLJQ5L (ORCPT ); Mon, 10 Dec 2007 11:57:11 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753872AbXLJQ5K (ORCPT ); Mon, 10 Dec 2007 11:57:10 -0500 Received: from eastrmmtai110.cox.net ([68.230.240.29]:50969 "EHLO eastrmmtai110.cox.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751840AbXLJQ5J (ORCPT ); Mon, 10 Dec 2007 11:57:09 -0500 X-Greylist: delayed 375 seconds by postgrey-1.27 at vger.kernel.org; Mon, 10 Dec 2007 11:57:09 EST Received: from eastrmimpo02.cox.net ([68.1.16.120]) by eastrmmtao106.cox.net (InterMail vM.7.08.02.01 201-2186-121-102-20070209) with ESMTP id <20071210165054.UJJX21667.eastrmmtao106.cox.net@eastrmimpo02.cox.net>; Mon, 10 Dec 2007 11:50:54 -0500 Received: from localhost ([68.0.253.29]) by eastrmimpo02.cox.net with bizsmtp id P4qY1Y00F0epFYL0000000; Mon, 10 Dec 2007 11:50:33 -0500 Received: from chris by localhost with local (Exim 4.66) (envelope-from ) id 1J1lqG-0005ru-5M; Mon, 10 Dec 2007 11:50:52 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <87ve76mwos.fsf@mid.deneb.enyo.de> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-11-01) Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Mon, Dec 10, 2007 at 03:49:39PM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote: > * Jakub Narebski: > > > + > > + Yes (or no depending on interpretation). Git > > This should be "No." (same for copies below). ISTM that people are stuck using less than helpful criteria for judging whether renames are supported. Namely, in effect, they ask: "Does the user get to do extra work in order to get rename-detection?" Let me humbly suggest an alternate, two-fold, very practical criteria that I actually care about as a user: 1) If I edit file A, while another developer renames file A to B, and I merge my work with his, do I have to clean things up myself, or does everything Just Work? 2) If I'm browsing the history of some code in a renamed file, does the history continue through the rename? By these criteria, git certainly does support renames. -chris