Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > This has come up a bunch of times. I think that the thing git itself > should be doing is to lean into the same notion that we use for tracking > renames. I.e. we don't, we analyze history after-the-fact and spot the > renames for you. I've never been a big fan of that quality of git because it is inherently unreliable.
