On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 10:33:11PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> writes: > > > Anyway. I don't think Miguel's patch needs to solve all of the lingering > > rename cases. But I am curious whether it makes some rename cases worse, > > because the depth-sorting was kicking in before and making them work. > > I agree with you on both counts, and I care more about the second > sentence, not just "am curious", but "am worried". I am not sure > that this patch is safe---it looked more like robbing peter to pay > paul or the other way around. Fixing for one class of breakage > without regressing is one thing and it is perfectly fine to leave > some already broken case broken with such a fix. Claiming to fix > one class and breaking other class that was happily working is quite > different, and that is where my "Wait, we also allow renames?" comes > from. Yeah, I don't disagree. I am just curious first, then worried second. :) If I had to choose, though, I'd rather see the order be reliable for the no-renames case. IOW, if we must rob one peter, I'd rather it be the renames, which already have tons of corner cases (and which I do not think can be plugged for a reader which depends on the order of the entries; the dependencies can be cycles). Of course if we can make it work correctly in all of the non-cyclical cases, all the better. -Peff