Re: git rebase bug?

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Wed, Jul 07, 2010 at 02:44:50PM -0700, Jakub Narebski wrote:
> Mike Hommey <mh@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> > On Wed, Jul 07, 2010 at 08:00:04PM +0200, Björn Steinbrink <B.Steinbrink@xxxxxx> wrote:
> > > On 2010.07.07 17:05:45 +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
> 
> > > > See how the security/manager/ssl/public/nsIBadCertListener.idl file that
> > > > was created by the original patch is created as
> > > > xulrunner/examples/simple/content/contents.rdf.
> > > 
> > > The "problem" is that nsIBadCertListener.idl wasn't actually created by
> > > the cherry-picked commit, but was modified. It was an empty file before,
> > > created in 4292283190983fa91b875e22664a79a3aa9ea45d.
> > > 
> > > And as nsIBadCertListener.idl is missing from the xulrunner/2.0 branch,
> > > git does the usual rename detection, finding another empty file and ends
> > > up patching that one instead.
> > 
> > Oh, makes sense. Thanks. So that's a quite troubling corner case...
> > I wonder if empty files shouldn't be special cased...
> 
> Well, similarity score (of contents and of filename) is weighted by
> contents length, but perhaps empty files / zero length somehow fall
> out as an edge case...
> 
> I agree that empty files should be special cased... unless filename is
> _very_ similar.

Question is, in a case like mine, what should the result be?

Mike
--
To unsubscribe from this list: 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


[Index of Archives]     [Linux Kernel Development]     [Gcc Help]     [IETF Annouce]     [DCCP]     [Netdev]     [Networking]     [Security]     [V4L]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux SCSI]     [Fedora Users]