From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:48391) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dUtg1-00073h-T1 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 11 Jul 2017 07:50:02 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dUtg1-000597-5v for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 11 Jul 2017 07:50:01 -0400 Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2017 13:49:51 +0200 From: Kashyap Chamarthy Message-ID: <20170711114951.bzxzkwajvbhjs4z2@eukaryote> References: <1499674503-21551-1-git-send-email-kchamart@redhat.com> <1499674503-21551-2-git-send-email-kchamart@redhat.com> <251c3898-8d5f-a799-318e-5ab0545220a3@redhat.com> <20170711075839.wgp64avrkzyo6d6t@eukaryote> <5215f15d-9d8b-698f-30a0-b2f569cbc59a@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <5215f15d-9d8b-698f-30a0-b2f569cbc59a@redhat.com> Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v6 1/2] bitmaps.md: Convert to rST; move it into 'interop' dir List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Eric Blake Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org, qemu-block@nongnu.org, kwolf@redhat.com, mreitz@redhat.com, jsnow@redhat.com, berto@igalia.com On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 06:33:22AM -0500, Eric Blake wrote: > On 07/11/2017 02:58 AM, Kashyap Chamarthy wrote: [...] > >> A shame that git rename detection doesn't see these as the same rough > >> contents, but not too bad. > > > > _Should_ it detect? > > It depends on the similarities between the file, and on whether you have > 'git config diff.renames true' set (there are some other parameters you > can set to fine-tune how much effort git expends on detecting file > renames, but the defaults are usually good enough). I see, noted. [...] > > Indeed -- the things you point out further below were already > > pre-existing. > > > > Asking out of curiosity: You say it is nicer split because we'll retain > > the `git-bisect`-ability? Or just to keep text motion and actual > > changes separate? (I think both.) > > bisect-ability is important on code, but less so on docs. If you were > doing code motion, I'd absolutely insist that cleanups be separate from > the motion; but here I don't have a strong preference (separating the > cleanups DOES make it easier to perform a backport of the cleanup > without having to backport the rename, but backporting docs tends to be > less of a priority than backporting code functionality). Yep, fully agree with you, and I guessed as much. Given this understanding, I'll just fix your feedback in this series. Thanks. -- /kashyap