On 12/30/2020 3:01 AM, Martin Ågren wrote: > On Wed, 30 Dec 2020 at 02:29, Derrick Stolee <stolee@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> Oh, and I remembered the one semi-legitimate case to try for exact >> renames whenever possible: "git log --follow" will download fewer >> blobs in a blobless partial clone (--filter=blob:none). Of course, >> this only works if the rule is always followed and is not really a >> justification for doubling the number of your patches. > > Ok, I see. Well, if you and/or others feel we should aim for a 100% > rename, I don't mind splitting the patches. My gut reaction is along > your "only works if the rule is always followed", plus I wonder if there > are actually Git developers using a blobless partial clone of git.git > [other than for testing blobless partial clones]. The upside is so small, it is not worth re-rolling your series. I was just thinking out loud to justify my first gut reaction. Even in blobless clones, this is not a huge cost (as long as we didn't also add or remove enormous blobs). This behavior of "filling in the gaps" is expected we use the repository. Thanks, -Stolee
