On Tue, Jun 19, 2007 at 01:10:28PM +1200, Martin Langhoff wrote: > > when I show git to newbies or demo it to people using other SCMs, and > we get to the rename part of the conversation, I discuss and show how > GIT's approach is significantly better than explicit recording of > renames. > > One great example is git-blame -- actually more spectacular with the > recent git gui blame improvements. But git-log still doesn't do it. Actually, the bigger missing gap is merges. Suppose in the development branch, you rename a whole bunch of files. (For example, foo_super.c got moved to foo/super.c, foo_inode.c got moved to foo/inode.c, etc.) Now suppose there are fixes made in the stable branch, in the original foo_super.c and foo_inode.c files. Ideally you would want to be able to pull those changes into the development branch, where the files have new names, and have the changes be applied to foo/super.c and foo/inode.c in the development branch. I was recently talking to someone who is still using BitKeeper, and he cited this scenario as one of the reasons why his project is still using BK; he'd like to move to git, but this is a critical piece of functionality for him. - Ted - 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
