From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Nicolas Pitre Subject: Re: Rename handling Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2007 14:35:03 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: References: <45FED31B.8070307@midwinter.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Cc: John Goerzen , git@vger.kernel.org To: Steven Grimm X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Mon Mar 19 19:35:12 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 1HTMhI-0002DA-Ox for gcvg-git@gmane.org; Mon, 19 Mar 2007 19:35:09 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1030519AbXCSSfG (ORCPT ); Mon, 19 Mar 2007 14:35:06 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1030524AbXCSSfG (ORCPT ); Mon, 19 Mar 2007 14:35:06 -0400 Received: from relais.videotron.ca ([24.201.245.36]:9392 "EHLO relais.videotron.ca" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1030519AbXCSSfE (ORCPT ); Mon, 19 Mar 2007 14:35:04 -0400 Received: from xanadu.home ([74.56.106.175]) by VL-MO-MR004.ip.videotron.ca (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-2.05 (built Apr 28 2005)) with ESMTP id <0JF500K5BYAF7290@VL-MO-MR004.ip.videotron.ca> for git@vger.kernel.org; Mon, 19 Mar 2007 14:35:04 -0400 (EDT) In-reply-to: <45FED31B.8070307@midwinter.com> X-X-Sender: nico@xanadu.home Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Mon, 19 Mar 2007, Steven Grimm wrote: > So to answer your question, in my opinion if 100% guaranteed renames are high > on your priority list, then Mercurial might be the better option for now. In > practice, I've found that git's 99+% rename detection has yet to fail on me > aside from the above directory renaming case, but at the end of the day it > *is* guessing at your renames after the fact. > > Okay, git gurus, show me no mercy. :) Well... the fact that you _still_ use GIT even in the face of a 1% probability that it might guess renames wrong (according to your own numbers) should mean that you didn't felt switching to Mercurial was worth the 100% guarantee for rename identification. And some will argue that explicit renames are susceptible to user error misidentifying the rename too, certainly in the 1% figure of all renames if not more. So maybe, just maybe, at the end of the day getting renames right 100% of the time instead of 99% is not such a big thing after all. Nicolas