From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Junio C Hamano Subject: Re: VCS comparison table Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2006 23:23:53 -0700 Message-ID: <7v64ejqx3a.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> References: <9e4733910610140807p633f5660q49dd2d2111c9f5fe@mail.gmail.com> <45340713.6000707@utoronto.ca> <4534656B.7080105@utoronto.ca> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: git@vger.kernel.org X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Tue Oct 17 08:23:58 2006 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by ciao.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GZiMn-0007k7-TH for gcvg-git@gmane.org; Tue, 17 Oct 2006 08:23:58 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1423138AbWJQGXz (ORCPT ); Tue, 17 Oct 2006 02:23:55 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1423139AbWJQGXz (ORCPT ); Tue, 17 Oct 2006 02:23:55 -0400 Received: from fed1rmmtao03.cox.net ([68.230.241.36]:7825 "EHLO fed1rmmtao03.cox.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1423138AbWJQGXy (ORCPT ); Tue, 17 Oct 2006 02:23:54 -0400 Received: from fed1rmimpo01.cox.net ([70.169.32.71]) by fed1rmmtao03.cox.net (InterMail vM.6.01.06.01 201-2131-130-101-20060113) with ESMTP id <20061017062353.UVYO2704.fed1rmmtao03.cox.net@fed1rmimpo01.cox.net>; Tue, 17 Oct 2006 02:23:53 -0400 Received: from assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net ([68.5.247.80]) by fed1rmimpo01.cox.net with bizsmtp id bJPg1V00Q1kojtg0000000 Tue, 17 Oct 2006 02:23:41 -0400 To: Aaron Bentley In-Reply-To: <4534656B.7080105@utoronto.ca> (Aaron Bentley's message of "Tue, 17 Oct 2006 01:08:59 -0400") User-Agent: Gnus/5.110006 (No Gnus v0.6) Emacs/21.4 (gnu/linux) Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Aaron Bentley writes: > Johannes Schindelin wrote: > >>> You'll note we referred to that bevhavior on the page. We don't think >>> what Git does is the same as supporting renames. AIUI, some Git users >>> feel the same way. >> >> Oh, we start another flamewar again? > > I'd hope not. It sounds as though you feel that supporting renames in > the data representation is *wrong*, and therefore it should be an insult > to you if we said that Git fully supported renames. Not recording and not supporting are quite different things. What we don't do is to _record_ renames in the data structure. I personally would not use a word as strong as _wrong_ (and Linus may disagree), but (1) we can support renames without recording them just fine, (2) recording renames would not help to tell users about line movements across files which we would want to do, and (3) we are getting closer to come up with a way to even do (2) without recording renames. Given these, perhaps I might say recording renames is _pointless_ when I am in good mood.