On Thu, Jun 30, 2022 at 3:32 PM Jonathan Tan <jonathantanmy@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > 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. Sure, will do.
