From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Steven Grimm Subject: Re: tracking renames Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2008 00:19:45 -0800 Message-ID: <526E4B08-9F52-461E-B542-4549987C4DFE@midwinter.com> References: <20080304135734.b2c2f473.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <965172C8-C7A4-4932-899B-1E1A77BD7C12@yahoo.ca> <200803051715.58375.jnareb@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v919.2) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jean-Fran=E7ois_Veillette?= , Andrew Morton , "Harvey Harrison" , git@vger.kernel.org To: Jakub Narebski X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Fri Mar 07 09:20:35 2008 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 1JXXoa-0004VE-Ct for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Fri, 07 Mar 2008 09:20:28 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752522AbYCGITu (ORCPT ); Fri, 7 Mar 2008 03:19:50 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752072AbYCGITt (ORCPT ); Fri, 7 Mar 2008 03:19:49 -0500 Received: from tater.midwinter.com ([216.32.86.90]:34184 "HELO midwinter.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1751461AbYCGITs (ORCPT ); Fri, 7 Mar 2008 03:19:48 -0500 Received: (qmail 2083 invoked from network); 7 Mar 2008 08:19:46 -0000 Comment: DomainKeys? See http://antispam.yahoo.com/domainkeys DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=200606; d=midwinter.com; b=AhwBbej7I9z1I9m60nz0I3LkWMp2dVDru4BfJZaIRPP+2gVZ+HWbukjgheaPhYGW ; Received: from localhost (HELO ?IPv6:::1?) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 7 Mar 2008 08:19:46 -0000 In-Reply-To: <200803051715.58375.jnareb@gmail.com> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.919.2) Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Mar 5, 2008, at 8:15 AM, Jakub Narebski wrote: > No, you are not the only one. Use Bazaar-NG (bzr) or Mercurial (hg) > if you think you truly need rename _tracking_ as opposed to rename > _detection_. Having watched (and participated in) this discussion several times as it's come up on the list, the one thing I don't understand is why people -- not you, but others -- think this has to be an "as opposed to" issue. I have yet to see anyone propose that git should lose its rename detection, but the counterarguments and explanations about how inferior rename tracking is often seem to presuppose that that's what's being asked for. I think the setup the pro-rename-tracking crowd mostly wants is, "git always treats explicitly specified renames as renames and uses its current detection regime if there is no explicit specification." As you say later on in the parent message, a wish-list item that hasn't become reality yet. I am not saying I think it's too important, BTW; I'm just trying to clarify the other point of view. Personally, my only major wish item for git's rename support is better handling of directory renames, but I don't really care how git knows that the directory in question has been renamed. The file rename support has worked very well for me in practice. -Steve