From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Lars Hjemli" Subject: Re: limiting rename detection during merge is a really bad idea Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2008 11:41:05 +0100 Message-ID: <8c5c35580802110241i72169620s693a31f9a098f596@mail.gmail.com> References: <20080211074817.GA18898@sigill.intra.peff.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: "Steffen Prohaska" , "Git Mailing List" To: "Jeff King" X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Mon Feb 11 11:41:49 2008 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 1JOW6e-0002m9-8u for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Mon, 11 Feb 2008 11:41:48 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753006AbYBKKlK (ORCPT ); Mon, 11 Feb 2008 05:41:10 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752295AbYBKKlJ (ORCPT ); Mon, 11 Feb 2008 05:41:09 -0500 Received: from wa-out-1112.google.com ([209.85.146.177]:27124 "EHLO wa-out-1112.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753006AbYBKKlH (ORCPT ); Mon, 11 Feb 2008 05:41:07 -0500 Received: by wa-out-1112.google.com with SMTP id v27so2093392wah.23 for ; Mon, 11 Feb 2008 02:41:06 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; bh=/7/j+KaJMoofTYs3gn5abRLvHu3LPp44sIM49xpa/Sk=; b=fVtwxA/4mWQ44ZHaoRlggo0i0CmP8Z8H2vOa6+V6MadiQLfkcgXqTzIQZYaOilD5pqG1743g3uXV1j245LlSjbtwOHJUC/zNKR4IJ7dQOPn5c0kvLypiYFPERTBdogiPTi11GmoLDVDNHdAKuWXlYlI/+OycGaXd0mq/XHzX9DI= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=Rphn9ZhGmXg1y2joDP/2Qi400MXRJbWhEoSSVfSMdVfM7cLV7fZSAx7TdBSe0N0uS+P3oU6Bx6PE0l7M0JCbhL4Zx5m9SClrOju6Ps9x0JDWqP5iJ830OCJQ0bicuEk6/AbgnOmz/OEgKULpC0ZldtW7+m7oksSAeqf72c0u1Js= Received: by 10.114.209.1 with SMTP id h1mr259826wag.115.1202726465968; Mon, 11 Feb 2008 02:41:05 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.115.73.7 with HTTP; Mon, 11 Feb 2008 02:41:05 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <20080211074817.GA18898@sigill.intra.peff.net> Content-Disposition: inline Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Feb 11, 2008 8:48 AM, Jeff King wrote: > On Mon, Feb 11, 2008 at 07:19:32AM +0100, Steffen Prohaska wrote: > > > I think that limiting rename detection during merge is a really > > bad idea. Either we should set it to unlimited, or at least we > > should print a BIG WARNING that rename detection is limited > > during the merge. I'd propose to override diff.renamelimit > > to unlimited for a merge, even if diff.renamelimit is explicitly > > configured by the user. It doesn't make sense not to detect > > renames during a merge. > > > > Opinions? > > The point of diff.renamelimit was that some rename detection is > literally so time-consuming that we might as well not bother starting > it. The number '100' was pulled out of Linus', er, hat. FWIW, prior to 07b45f8c merge-recursive ignored diff.renamelimit. The effect of this was that 'git diff HEAD somebranch' could detect renames which 'git merge somebranch' couldn't; Teaching merge-recursive about diff.renamelimit made sense IMHO since 'git merge' then would agree with 'git diff' regarding renames. > It may also be that multiple rename limits are appropriate. I don't mind > waiting 30 seconds for rename detection during a particularly tricky > merge. I probably do when running 'git-log -p'. Yeah, I guess we could add support for merge.renamelimit in addition to diff.renamelimit (i.e. use diff.renamelimit if merge.renamelimit is unspecified). And/or add the -l option of git-diff-* to git-merge.sh/merge-recursive.c. -- larsh