Re: Rename tracking

[Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>]

>>>>> "PB" == Petr Baudis <pasky@ucw.cz> writes:

PB> Well, I'd say that with those renaming patches we are feeling the need
PB> for it?

Again, not me.  What I did (and asked you to do) was to help
_others_ who are interested in rename tracking, not me.  Find
the following message in the archive if you want to know why I
am not in urgent need for rename tracking.

    To:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>
    Cc:	David Greaves <david@dgreaves.com>, git@vger.kernel.org
    Subject: GIT blame (was Re: Quick command reference)
    From:	Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
    Date:	Fri, 06 May 2005 02:32:30 -0700
    X-Mailing-List:	git@vger.kernel.org

    >>>>> I == Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net> said:

    JCH> Linus, please pull from git-jc.git archive at:
    JCH>     http://members.cox.net/junkio/git-jc.git/

    Since that message I have added a couple more commits there.
    One of the things is a backport of -t (tag) flag to git-ls-files
    from Cogito fork.

    The reason I am writing this message is not because I am excited
    about the backport [*1*], but because I find it quite cool the
    way I found out which commit in Pasky's development line
    introduced the change.  It demonstrates your previous "renames
    does not matter when doing CVS blame" argument actually works.

    Here is what I did: ... (the rest omitted) ...