From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Junio C Hamano Subject: Re: Basename matching during rename/copy detection Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2007 01:07:42 -0700 Message-ID: <7vtzt1ybld.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.pobox.com> References: <20070621030622.GD8477@spearce.org> <7vsl8m3sph.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.pobox.com> <200706210900.49702.andyparkins@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, "Shawn O. Pearce" , govindsalinas To: Andy Parkins X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Thu Jun 21 10:07:53 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 1I1Hhl-0007Z9-Na for gcvg-git@gmane.org; Thu, 21 Jun 2007 10:07:50 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752873AbXFUIHq (ORCPT ); Thu, 21 Jun 2007 04:07:46 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752837AbXFUIHp (ORCPT ); Thu, 21 Jun 2007 04:07:45 -0400 Received: from fed1rmmtao104.cox.net ([68.230.241.42]:63455 "EHLO fed1rmmtao104.cox.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752809AbXFUIHo (ORCPT ); Thu, 21 Jun 2007 04:07:44 -0400 Received: from fed1rmimpo01.cox.net ([70.169.32.71]) by fed1rmmtao104.cox.net (InterMail vM.7.08.02.01 201-2186-121-102-20070209) with ESMTP id <20070621080745.LZED17635.fed1rmmtao104.cox.net@fed1rmimpo01.cox.net>; Thu, 21 Jun 2007 04:07:45 -0400 Received: from assigned-by-dhcp.pobox.com ([68.5.247.80]) by fed1rmimpo01.cox.net with bizsmtp id E87j1X0021kojtg0000000; Thu, 21 Jun 2007 04:07:43 -0400 In-Reply-To: <200706210900.49702.andyparkins@gmail.com> (Andy Parkins's message of "Thu, 21 Jun 2007 09:00:47 +0100") 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: Andy Parkins writes: > On Thursday 2007 June 21, Junio C Hamano wrote: > >> Having many "identical files" in the preimage is just stupid to >> begin with (if you know they are identical, why are you storing >> copies, instead of your build procedure to reuse the same file), >> so the algorithm did not bother finding a better match among >> "equals". > > That's a really poor argument; it's not git's place to impose restrictions on > what is stored in it. It's not even an argument, nor an attempt to justify it. It was just an explanation of historical fact "It did not bother". Please re-read the final part of the message, which you omitted from your quote.