Re: impure renames / history tracking

[Paul Jakma <paul@clubi.ie>]

On Wed, 1 Mar 2006, Andreas Ericsson wrote:

> Yes, but imo a poor one, as you're losing all the history.

Well, not per se. You might keep the original 'detail' branch. It's a 
terminal branch obviously, you can't pull master's changes to it once 
the aggregate patch goes into master. But you can keep it around.

> git *can* do what you want, but it was designed to maintain a long 
> history so that everyone can see it and improve on the code with 
> many chains of small and simultanous changes.

Indeed, and I appreciate that.

> Perhpas we have a nomenclature clash here. When you say "one single 
> commit", I can't help but thinking "snapshot".

I mean:

 	git diff upstream..bugfix_xyz

or:

 	git diff upstream..project_foo_phase1

type of thing.

> It's completely impossible to fold *ALL* the history into a single 
> commit, and since you want heuristics I would imagine you wouldn't 
> want that either.

I want to know whether additional meta-data to help the existing 
heuristics would be acceptable. From a discussion on #git yesterday I 
gather the best way forward would to be to first prototype something 
keeping state in a file in .git.

All that's needed really is something that relates the following 3 
things:

 	commit-id obj1-id obj2-id

Ie: For <commit-id>, <obj1-id> is similar to <obj2-id>.

Maintaining this state could be done via the git-mv/rename wrappers 
and an additional git-edit wrapper. Those who are quite happy with 
the existing diff-input only similarity heuristics wouldn't have to 
bother using a git-edit wrapper obviously, those who want to let git 
gather additional 'similarity hint' in this way could.

Aside:

Git might be easier to extend generally if it adopted just /one/ new 
core header, say "see-also" - that could serve as a pointer to 
arbitrary commit-related meta-info objects that aren't of immediate 
interest to either:

a) core git

or

b) the user

Format:

 	see-also <word> <obj-id>

E.g.:

 	see-also similars <obj-id>

Where <obj-id> would list the 'commit obj1 obj2', but just as:

 	obj1 obj2

Would ultimately be neater than fishing around in .git/, and would 
allow other extensions in the future too.

The <word> identifier preferably would need to be centrally 
co-ordinated.

> I'm confused. First you say you want to have one single mega-patch 
> for each commit, then you say you want to be able to follow history 
> back. It's like deciding to throw away your wallet and then trying 
> to get someone to pick it up and carry it around for you.

I'm not sure why think mega-patch. Collapsing a bunch of commits 
related to one project need not result in a big patch relative to the 
repository as a whole.

In Linux terms think project == "Add ATAPI support to SATA" or 
"Change the foo VFS method and update its filesystem users" type of 
thing (ok, the latter would be big enough, but still not /that/ big 
in terms of the whole Linux source base). Where the project concerned 
is like BSD, not just a kernel but a complete userland (so 1.1GB of 
source code).

I'm aware of the workflow arguments, I /do/ intend to make those but 
elsewhere ;).

> As for convincing others, shove git-bisect under their noses and 
> ask them if they'd like a tool to find their bugs for them.

;)

[snip - thanks, interesting]

> The code is mightier than the mail. Perhaps if I see an implementation of 
> this I could wrap my head around what you really mean. I'm sure I must 
> misunderstand you one way or another.

Yes, you're right. I think Junio gave me the required hints on 
directions last night on #git.

I think now at least it's quite possible to achieve without violating 
git's "track the /content/" philosophy, via .git.

Thanks!

regards,
-- 
Paul Jakma	paul@clubi.ie	paul@jakma.org	Key ID: 64A2FF6A
Fortune:
Factorials were someone's attempt to make math LOOK exciting.