On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 6:12 PM, Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > And no matter what your model, renames can be annoying. On-going topics > will have a painful rebase or merge. And people looking at history will > have to deal with the code-base having different names at different > points. Yeah, you can say it's all just "content", but the filenames we > put things in are actually useful. I have been dealing with this quite a bit lately as Chromium has been doing mass renaming. It's no small project and sometimes those merges are big: [diff] renames = copies renameLimit = 2000 :-) What I can say is, yes, it's annoying, but also: git does quite a decent job of it. I've found myself having to do this occasionally, but not too often: git diff ...MERGE_HEAD -- /path/to/old/name | patch /path/to/new/name (Typically when a header is renamed, a stub is left in place at the old name which just includes the new name, and the local changes don't come across to the new name 100% cleanly.) Anyway, I would welcome git.git getting a little taste of that. :-) :-) :-) j. -- 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