On Thu, Jul 21, 2022 at 9:39 AM Phillip Susi <phill@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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. Indeed, which would be fine ... if there were a way to tell Git, "no this is not a rename" or "hey, you missed this rename" but there isn't. Reading previous messages, it seems like the after-the-fact-rename-heuristic makes the Git code simpler. That is a perfectly valid argument for not supporting "explicit" renames but I have seen several messages from which I inferred that rename handling was deemed a "solved problem". And _that_, at least in my experience, is definitely not the case.
