From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Junio C Hamano Subject: Re: [RFC] use typechange as rename source Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2007 16:02:49 -0800 Message-ID: <7vir3l2a1i.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> References: <20071121171235.GA32233@sigill.intra.peff.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: git@vger.kernel.org To: Jeff King X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Thu Nov 29 01:03:18 2007 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 1IxWs9-0007xc-TS for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Thu, 29 Nov 2007 01:03:18 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1758116AbXK2AC4 (ORCPT ); Wed, 28 Nov 2007 19:02:56 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1758280AbXK2ACz (ORCPT ); Wed, 28 Nov 2007 19:02:55 -0500 Received: from sceptre.pobox.com ([207.106.133.20]:54749 "EHLO sceptre.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1757805AbXK2ACy (ORCPT ); Wed, 28 Nov 2007 19:02:54 -0500 Received: from sceptre (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by sceptre.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 11AB72EF; Wed, 28 Nov 2007 19:03:15 -0500 (EST) 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 sceptre.sasl.smtp.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9E6739AAD1; Wed, 28 Nov 2007 19:03:12 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: <20071121171235.GA32233@sigill.intra.peff.net> (Jeff King's message of "Wed, 21 Nov 2007 12:12:36 -0500") 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: Jeff King writes: > There are a few add-on questions: > > - should typechanges in both directions be used, or just file -> > symlink? > > - this actually produces a 'copied' status rather than a 'renamed' > since the 'foo' entry does still exist. Is this reasonable? I do not think this is a risky change; it won't add too many rename sources we did not consider traditionally (typechanges are usually rare event anyway). You are copying the source to elsewhere and then completely rewriting it (even making it into a different type), so I do not think 'copied' is so unreasonable. An alternative would be to say you renamed it and then created something totally different, which would also be reasonable.