Hi,
I'm trying to understand git better (so I can explain it better to
others, with an eye to them considering switching to git), one
question I have is about renames.
- git obviously detects pure renames perfectly well
- git doesn't however record renames, so 'impure' renames may not be
detected
My question is:
- why not record rename information explicitely in the commit object?
I.e. so as to be able to follow history information through 'impure'
renames without having to resort to heuristics.
E.g. imagine a project where development typically occurs through:
o: commit
m: merge
o---o-m--o-o-o--o----m <- project
/ / /
o-o-o-o-o--o-o-o--o-o-o <- main branch
The project merge back to main in one 'big' combined merge
(collapsing all of the commits on 'project' into one commit). This
leads to 'impure renames' being not uncommon. The desired end-result
of merging back to 'main' being to rebase 'project' as one commit
against 'main', and merge that single commit back, a la:
o---o-m--o-o-o--o----m <- project
/ / /
o-o-o-o-o--o-o-o--o-o-o---m <- main branch
\ /
o <- project_collapsed
So that 'm' on 'main' is that one commit[1].
The merits or demerits of such merging practice aside, what reason
would there be /against/ recording explicit rename information in the
commit object, so as to help browsers follow history (particularly
impure renames) better in a commit?
I.e. would there be resistance to adding meta-info rename headers
commit objects, and having diffcore and other tools to use those
headers to /augment/ their existing heuristics in detecting renames?
Thanks!
1. Git currently doesn't have 'porcelain' to do this, presumably
there'd be no objection to one?
regards,
--
Paul Jakma paul@xxxxxxxx paul@xxxxxxxxx Key ID: 64A2FF6A
Fortune:
It is the quality rather than the quantity that matters.
- Lucius Annaeus Seneca (4 B.C. - A.D. 65)
-
: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html