From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "David Tweed" Subject: Re: detecting rename->commit->modify->commit Date: Thu, 1 May 2008 16:30:24 +0100 Message-ID: References: <4819CF50.2020509@tikalk.com> <4819D98E.1040004@tikalk.com> <20080501150958.GA11145@sigill.intra.peff.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: "Ittay Dror" , git@vger.kernel.org To: "Jeff King" X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Thu May 01 17:31:31 2008 connect(): Connection refused 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 1Jrake-00052E-RA for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Thu, 01 May 2008 17:31:17 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1762103AbYEAPa3 (ORCPT ); Thu, 1 May 2008 11:30:29 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1762093AbYEAPa2 (ORCPT ); Thu, 1 May 2008 11:30:28 -0400 Received: from ug-out-1314.google.com ([66.249.92.168]:44532 "EHLO ug-out-1314.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1762054AbYEAPa0 (ORCPT ); Thu, 1 May 2008 11:30:26 -0400 Received: by ug-out-1314.google.com with SMTP id z38so1741425ugc.16 for ; Thu, 01 May 2008 08:30:25 -0700 (PDT) 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=tol2k1eecticrXW44OCN8XhtaiayIC8gvyZyWRlS2Qk=; b=fCGF6fM9q5SthUYrTNvn5Nsy94Ne/ZVXD1hYllexDN28/SDdk9HNCRIujlUFYYFNW/ZNiklAYZtQiodQ/aAvtUr8Fn8oQVhy3GXYH/TaGOwdtia+6vSNEPS0och+f8yB/q07G/VAWjY4XM7LDhd5hJoCLKvSYd3ba1d9BYZ90L4= 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=UqsFiFEjYBSnuP4uP0hDiqiV82JiC4wfFBeLjdshG+hj83hNjPX9FaZnyjqVuBKvZINrcWbwuE9rKsOUHTl0mvHg6+RuYEPwtJ9ZzduKevPCqduYCuMuOgx3ESbXcwGrfXya9zPXq3dSMfjjU2+E5UrFizdd55Y9AKhE26VbC2w= Received: by 10.150.206.21 with SMTP id d21mr2355377ybg.227.1209655824333; Thu, 01 May 2008 08:30:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.150.225.18 with HTTP; Thu, 1 May 2008 08:30:24 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20080501150958.GA11145@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 Thu, May 1, 2008 at 4:09 PM, Jeff King wrote: > On Thu, May 01, 2008 at 05:54:06PM +0300, Ittay Dror wrote: > > > Also, would anyone like to comment on: > > http://www.markshuttleworth.com/archives/123 (Renaming is the killer app > > of distributed version control > > )? I'll just make the obvious point that he's talking about a problem and an underlying cause: The problem is not being able to successfully merge branches as time goes by when one branch has had some renaming. He's decided the root cause is not have an explicit representation of renames which would enable the merges to succeed. So there are two questions: 1. Does development often happen where files get renamed and then modified significantly in a distributed fashion but it is still sensible to automatically merge the results? 2. Do you need explicit rename tracking to do an automatic merge in those cases? I suspect that for 2 you don't in theory but considering all the non-obvious possibilities would slow down the normal case of a standard merge. -- cheers, dave tweed__________________________ david.tweed@gmail.com Rm 124, School of Systems Engineering, University of Reading. "while having code so boring anyone can maintain it, use Python." -- attempted insult seen on slashdot