Elijah Newren <newren@xxxxxxxxx> writes: >> Recent addition of "directory rename" heuristics to the >> merge-recursive backend makes the command susceptible to false >> positives and false negatives, but the risk is even more grave when >> used in the context of "git am -3", which does not know about any >> surrounding unmodified paths while inspecting a patch. The >> heuristic is disabled to keep the machinery "more stupid but >> predicable". > > I had separate comments about the SQUASH patch in the relevant thread, > but I've got a few comments on the release note itself, which I hope > are helpful: Yes indeed. > - Perhaps change the last sentence to '...heuristic is disabled for > "git am -3" to keep...', just to be slightly more clear about where it > is disabled? Yes, indeed that is a very good idea. > - Small spelling error: s/predicable/predictable/ This too. > - Do we really want to say "even more" here? I'd rather we left those > two words off or found another rewording. Obviously, I'm biased, but > there's more than just my own opinion of and vested interest in the > directory rename detection feature. I'm afraid users may interpret > this sentence as saying the git project feels we've shipped a > generally bad/unsafe feature, but are only taking corrective action in > the most egregious of cases. That seems to me like a scary message to > send. Maybe I'm just mis-reading what you meant, but I wanted to at > least check what you meant here and, if that meaning was not > intentional, ask whether we could improve the wording. I am biased towards "keep it stupid and simple and predictable" camp, and want to make sure that users do not to blindly trust overly-clever behaviour of the tool. As heuristics can always make mistakes either way, I felt that not saying "more" would be sending the opposite message---"in normal cases, dir-rename code will notice presence or absense of whole-directory renames without mistakes but when used in 'am -3' it misbehaves". But it was not my intention to say "it is generally bad/unsafe". I just wanted to make sure that the users would understand it is "not fool-proof and can make mistakes". Suggestions for a better rewrite is very much appreciated. Thanks.
