Elijah Newren <newren@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > Ah, I can see you've looked at this very closely. Thanks for digging > in! I know it's counter-intuitive at first, but the file is > necessary in order to get the sub1/ -> sub3/ rename. The reasoning is > as follows: We don't need to detect a directory rename for a directory > where the other side added no new files into that directory...because > the whole point of directory renames is to move new files in a > directory to the new location. Therefore, no new files in the > directory on one side, means no need to detect a directory rename for > it on the other side. For a deeper discussion of this, see commit > c64432aacd (t6423: more involved rules for renaming directories into > each other, 2020-10-15). Thanks! This makes sense. Might be worth including as a comment (explaining why "newfile" is there) in the test.
