From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS31976 209.132.176.0/21 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.5 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MSGID_FROM_MTA_HEADER,RP_MATCHES_RCVD shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 From: Nicholas Allen Subject: Re: git and bzr Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2006 21:37:19 +0100 Message-ID: <456C9DFF.1040407@onlinehome.de> References: <45357CC3.4040507@utoronto.ca> <87slhcz8zh.wl%cworth@cworth.org> <7vu01ro20b.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> <20061026101038.GA13310@coredump.intra.peff.net> <877iyne4dm.fsf@alplog.fr> <456B7C6A.80104@webdrake.net> <845b6e870611280410j58bdcd99nc05d0f67489293e4@mail.gmail.com> <456C7592.6020700@ableton.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2006 20:37:48 +0000 (UTC) Cc: bazaar-ng@lists.canonical.com, git@vger.kernel.org Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git@gmane.org User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.8 (X11/20061115) In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 0.94.0.0 X-Provags-ID: kundenserver.de abuse@kundenserver.de login:8f68dfdb39f9894a8a7411e7c5df1048 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by ciao.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Gp9hr-0007Eu-Er for gcvg-git@gmane.org; Tue, 28 Nov 2006 21:37:31 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754368AbWK1Uh1 (ORCPT ); Tue, 28 Nov 2006 15:37:27 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1754665AbWK1Uh1 (ORCPT ); Tue, 28 Nov 2006 15:37:27 -0500 Received: from moutng.kundenserver.de ([212.227.126.187]:64203 "EHLO moutng.kundenserver.de") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754368AbWK1Uh0 (ORCPT ); Tue, 28 Nov 2006 15:37:26 -0500 Received: from [84.190.155.117] (helo=[192.168.1.100]) by mrelayeu.kundenserver.de (node=mrelayeu6) with ESMTP (Nemesis), id 0ML29c-1Gp9hg3qWH-0008Uy; Tue, 28 Nov 2006 21:37:24 +0100 To: Jakub Narebski Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Jakub Narebski wrote: > Nicholas Allen wrote: > >>> The reason this is a good example is simply the fact that it should >>> totally silence anybody who still thinks that tracking file identities is >>> a good thing. It explains well why tracking file identities is just >>> _stupid_. >> I'm unfamiliar with git so I could be totally wrong here! >> >> I know that bzr supports file renames/moves very effectively and I > > This means: _usually_ works, doesn't it? Emphasisis on "usually"? Having not used git I can't really say whether git is better than bzr or not in this regard. I know in the kind of development I do the case where a file with the same name has been added independantly in 2 different branches is a pretty rare one. Usually, when it has happened the files should have been 2 separate files with different names anyway - so bzr would have no problem with this. However, renaming a file is pretty common and I would rather be explicit about it and have file name changes easily visible/searchable in my log. Just out of curiosity: How does git handle the case where one file is renamed differently in 2 branches and then the branches are repeatably merged? I know that bzr handles this very well and in various tests I did there were absolutely no repeated conflicts. Would git behave as well in this scenario?