From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Junio C Hamano Subject: Re: git-mv redux: there must be something else going on Date: Wed, 03 Feb 2010 16:48:20 -0800 Message-ID: <7vvded4yi3.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> References: <32541b131002031048i26d166d9w3567a60515235c34@mail.gmail.com> <32541b131002031240p6b67536ame6b69c6d662a7968@mail.gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: git@vger.kernel.org To: Ron Garret X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Thu Feb 04 01:48:33 2010 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1NcptY-00009l-UD for gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org; Thu, 04 Feb 2010 01:48:33 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752235Ab0BDAs2 (ORCPT ); Wed, 3 Feb 2010 19:48:28 -0500 Received: from a-pb-sasl-quonix.pobox.com ([208.72.237.25]:39253 "EHLO sasl.smtp.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1757468Ab0BDAs1 (ORCPT ); Wed, 3 Feb 2010 19:48:27 -0500 Received: from sasl.smtp.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by a-pb-sasl-quonix.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0B353977B2; Wed, 3 Feb 2010 19:48:27 -0500 (EST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=to:cc:subject :references:from:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; s=sasl; bh=CxQGYsaKjEb6GE+GKmuOddslXXM=; b=VsRV84 C3qpTPRzs5nD5SvJqS/ja7xCh6rOLu3AMn1GGbIvOVG0RQWbhyMqwbUHbnYWlDJ0 VopRfP2PJ/EA5V+R553liYOlLeDzotoAr4Qr2U4yk5ICUd/hkqydCNGj/AbpYpaK gko8+jZWqX8GIiiGHmD9cZbNsiF1Kd19IC5Uw= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=pobox.com; h=to:cc:subject :references:from:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; q=dns; s=sasl; b=HhuzYoOKMMgjXFMOORmhviRraGVBH3mP XGtY+yIZj4TBsmwJOqSQLDXeaTLEi9mQ4an6wkMIAmRdg7xnbaeAW4QrbHCUCXg/ MvdzcIg6teraMBI8Pn7coP7oMP+DDsY7FBFDm/2gqPhqEkIiT5nVo/VZK0K6srG6 yl1DKZm8VGU= Received: from a-pb-sasl-quonix. (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by a-pb-sasl-quonix.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D5C63977B1; Wed, 3 Feb 2010 19:48:24 -0500 (EST) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [68.225.240.211]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by a-pb-sasl-quonix.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 2DDD6977AE; Wed, 3 Feb 2010 19:48:22 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: (Ron Garret's message of "Wed\, 03 Feb 2010 14\:33\:28 -0800") User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.2 (gnu/linux) X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 00286810-1127-11DF-B738-6AF7ED7EF46B-77302942!a-pb-sasl-quonix.pobox.com Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Ron Garret writes: > A and B start with a file named config. A and B both make edits. In > addition, B renames config to be config1 and creates a new, very similar > file called config2. B then merges from A with the expectation that B's > edits to config would end up in config1 and not config2. It seems to me > that without tracking renames, it would be luck of the draw which file > the patch got applied to. I don't think the above is necessarily "rename" issue, but touches an interesting point -- it is so "interesting" to the point that no sane SCM would even consider that is a problem they need to solve. If config1 and config2 are about two different ways to configure the software (e.g. two different build for different customers), and change made by A was to accomodate new configuration option made in the upstream, B might even want to have that addition reflected in _both_ of his configuration files, config1 and config2. Earlier in this message, I said that this is not an issue SCM should even be solving, because a sane way to handle this would _not_ be to copy and edit config1/config2 and keep track of them in SCM; instead, saner people would maintain a build procedure (e.g. Makefile target) to transform the template "config" into necessary "config1" and "config2" customized variants.