From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Junio C Hamano Subject: Re: git-pull - strange (copy/rename) messages ?! Date: Tue, 01 Nov 2005 09:43:51 -0800 Message-ID: <7vbr149sbs.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> References: <43678C73.1080601@excelsior-online.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: git@vger.kernel.org X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Tue Nov 01 18:45:52 2005 Return-path: Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by ciao.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1EX0Au-0000QO-Fq for gcvg-git@gmane.org; Tue, 01 Nov 2005 18:43:56 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751047AbVKARnx (ORCPT ); Tue, 1 Nov 2005 12:43:53 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751052AbVKARnx (ORCPT ); Tue, 1 Nov 2005 12:43:53 -0500 Received: from fed1rmmtao09.cox.net ([68.230.241.30]:13970 "EHLO fed1rmmtao09.cox.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751043AbVKARnw (ORCPT ); Tue, 1 Nov 2005 12:43:52 -0500 Received: from assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net ([68.4.9.127]) by fed1rmmtao09.cox.net (InterMail vM.6.01.05.02 201-2131-123-102-20050715) with ESMTP id <20051101174353.JMGQ9260.fed1rmmtao09.cox.net@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net>; Tue, 1 Nov 2005 12:43:53 -0500 To: Linus Torvalds User-Agent: Gnus/5.110004 (No Gnus v0.4) Emacs/21.4 (gnu/linux) Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Linus Torvalds writes: > Btw, Junio, I thought "git pull" was only supposed to do rename > detection, not copy detection. Sorry, but what do you mean by "only rename detection but not copy detection" in this case? When you have "ce A B; ce A C; ce A D;... ; mv A Z", (ce is like cp but "copy+edit") where B-Z are all new files and A disappears from the result, trying to detect renames would end up detecting copies without extra processing; B through Z are rename destination candidates, and A is a rename source candidate (there may be others), and it turns out that B-Z all look like A. Would it be easier to read if we say A was renamed to B, and A was renamed to C, and A was renamed to D, ...? I think the current output is easier to understand than that. B-Y gets labelled as copy of A and Z gets labelled as rename.