From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Avery Pennarun Subject: Re: git-mv redux: there must be something else going on Date: Wed, 3 Feb 2010 18:18:59 -0500 Message-ID: <32541b131002031518t1017d351xcf9071f0a937474e@mail.gmail.com> References: <32541b131002031048i26d166d9w3567a60515235c34@mail.gmail.com> <32541b131002031240p6b67536ame6b69c6d662a7968@mail.gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Cc: git@vger.kernel.org To: Ron Garret X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Thu Feb 04 00:20:29 2010 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1NcoWH-0005qP-7C for gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org; Thu, 04 Feb 2010 00:20:25 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756553Ab0BCXTV convert rfc822-to-quoted-printable (ORCPT ); Wed, 3 Feb 2010 18:19:21 -0500 Received: from mail-gx0-f228.google.com ([209.85.217.228]:54940 "EHLO mail-gx0-f228.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755516Ab0BCXTU convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Wed, 3 Feb 2010 18:19:20 -0500 Received: by gxk28 with SMTP id 28so1795396gxk.9 for ; Wed, 03 Feb 2010 15:19:19 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references :from:date:message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=ieuQEwD8qLNw52rLGHlJPXRG4oKjT8XZWt7ti77xwVk=; b=OYCxl7TyFIJjzrexhNcu2DJeI9oBpAbolyUQQYltHZ91p5BxQnHxytRs+C7VrHkQPu MVkfLl4Nmc/yGS4QOzsFRo+ulEsH8NG8zG+Rl8+hpZqULqVkeNYhEPbQmFYPsaNSpJ4a zMoLNN3K4Nez8cQpNhkvvIch/UEBUwVbNUD7Y= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=eXJEOn2RpcZRMZn+VSCho6PcmuDtkgrfB7J/NUs1GN3HUCExI0tTurWqV6NbikGOvu PfbVFDJYEu0W+OHie77tXnar7TJk3VItT7VfQw0oPRqRiPR+2LGKOJC+JAm6zFMJlvH7 PCPWZiNSFc7St6ha8yWl4VvcsUHuy8B8fCtRE= Received: by 10.151.89.37 with SMTP id r37mr904502ybl.60.1265239159174; Wed, 03 Feb 2010 15:19:19 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Wed, Feb 3, 2010 at 5:33 PM, Ron Garret wrote: > Here's a realistic case where keeping explicit track of renames could= be > useful. > > A and B start with a file named config. =A0A and B both make edits. =A0= In > addition, B renames config to be config1 and creates a new, very simi= lar > file called config2. =A0B then merges from A with the expectation tha= t B's > edits to config would end up in config1 and not config2. =A0It seems = to me > that without tracking renames, it would be luck of the draw which fil= e > the patch got applied to. The problem is that this single "realistic case" is not actually very common, and it's dwarfed by the other realistic cases: developer forgets to use 'git mv' to rename the file; developer accidentally deletes a file, commits, and then readds it later; etc. Have I been bitten by exactly your example? Yup. But I've been bitten by lots of other related things too, and explicit rename tracking (at least in svn) has quite frequently made the problems *worse*. In my personal experience, git screws up less often. The fact that it's also elegant is a nice bonus too :) More about this: http://marc.info/?l=3Dgit&m=3D114123702826251 Have fun, Avery