From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Junio C Hamano Subject: Re: bisect / history preserving on rename + update Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2007 10:23:05 -0700 Message-ID: <7vd4xb5y12.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> References: <1187080681.12828.174.camel@chaos> <7vmywgb45c.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Thomas Gleixner , Git Mailing List To: Linus Torvalds X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Sat Aug 25 19:23:40 2007 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1IOzMK-0006ED-Ek for gcvg-git@gmane.org; Sat, 25 Aug 2007 19:23:40 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753296AbXHYRXO (ORCPT ); Sat, 25 Aug 2007 13:23:14 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753534AbXHYRXO (ORCPT ); Sat, 25 Aug 2007 13:23:14 -0400 Received: from rune.sasl.smtp.pobox.com ([208.210.124.37]:43023 "EHLO sasl.smtp.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753028AbXHYRXN (ORCPT ); Sat, 25 Aug 2007 13:23:13 -0400 Received: from pobox.com (ip68-225-240-77.oc.oc.cox.net [68.225.240.77]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by rune.sasl.smtp.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1FD371283B4; Sat, 25 Aug 2007 13:23:29 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: (Linus Torvalds's message of "Sat, 25 Aug 2007 08:38:32 -0700 (PDT)") 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: Linus Torvalds writes: >> It was corrected into the current behaviour, following the guiding >> principle described in this message: >> >> http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/3807 > > Ahh, you're a wily one. Using my own words against me. I am not being wily. I usually do not remember nor quote too old histories, but June 2005 was somewhat special to me. Those two weeks of 18-hour-straight-doing-git-and-nothing-else, working with git and with you in particular, were what taught me how fun open source development and working with brilliant others is. > Ie, the true "guiding principle" should be the principle of minizing the > final diff - that's how diff is supposed to act within a single file, and > I think it's how the rename/copy detection is supposed to act too. Ok, I would agree with that in principle, but that would be rather intrusive change that I am sure would have fallout to git-apply side (and anybody who interprets "git diff" output, especially gitweb), too. I am not rejecting the idea, but I won't be able to look into it myself for some time.