From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Junio C Hamano Subject: Re: [RFC] use typechange as rename source Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2007 17:10:45 -0800 Message-ID: <7vmyswsfl6.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> References: <20071121171235.GA32233@sigill.intra.peff.net> <7vir3l2a1i.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> <20071129141452.GA32670@coredump.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 Fri Nov 30 02:11:10 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 1IxuPO-0003c1-3T for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Fri, 30 Nov 2007 02:11:10 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1763426AbXK3BKv (ORCPT ); Thu, 29 Nov 2007 20:10:51 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1763415AbXK3BKu (ORCPT ); Thu, 29 Nov 2007 20:10:50 -0500 Received: from sceptre.pobox.com ([207.106.133.20]:52318 "EHLO sceptre.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1762123AbXK3BKu (ORCPT ); Thu, 29 Nov 2007 20:10:50 -0500 Received: from sceptre (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by sceptre.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AE3EB2EF; Thu, 29 Nov 2007 20:11:11 -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 4B6C19B2EA; Thu, 29 Nov 2007 20:11:09 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: <20071129141452.GA32670@coredump.intra.peff.net> (Jeff King's message of "Thu, 29 Nov 2007 09:14:53 -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: > OK. What next? Did the patch I sent make sense? Do you want a cleaned up > version with a commit message and signoff, or does it need work? It just hit me that breaking (as in diffcore-break) a filepair that is a typechange may yield the same result, and if it works, that would be conceptually cleaner. After all, a typechange is the ultimate form of total rewriting (the similarity between the preimage and the postimage is very low -- even their types are different, let alone contents). Compared to that, the rename_used++ in that codepath you touched feels more magic to me.