On Mon, 19 Mar 2007, Steven Grimm wrote: > So to answer your question, in my opinion if 100% guaranteed renames are high > on your priority list, then Mercurial might be the better option for now. In > practice, I've found that git's 99+% rename detection has yet to fail on me > aside from the above directory renaming case, but at the end of the day it > *is* guessing at your renames after the fact. > > Okay, git gurus, show me no mercy. :) Well... the fact that you _still_ use GIT even in the face of a 1% probability that it might guess renames wrong (according to your own numbers) should mean that you didn't felt switching to Mercurial was worth the 100% guarantee for rename identification. And some will argue that explicit renames are susceptible to user error misidentifying the rename too, certainly in the 1% figure of all renames if not more. So maybe, just maybe, at the end of the day getting renames right 100% of the time instead of 99% is not such a big thing after all. Nicolas - 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