On 2008.10.10 08:54:50 -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > > Because git does not care how you created B (IOW, it does not matter > > if B was typed from scratch with copying and pasting, or created by > > copying and editing), the "renamed: A -> B" entry itself is not > > surprising nor look like a bug at all,... > > The above observation of mine is correct, but I forgot that "git status" > (and the comment in the commit template from "git commit") is generated > internally with "diff-index -B -M". So if > > (0) had A but not B in the HEAD commit; > (1) you created B that is very similar to the original A; and > (2) you modified A beyond recognition; > > then git will say "A was modified and B was created by renaming A". > > > ... but its presense at the same time as "modified: A" does feel very > > fishy. > > So this is not fishy anymore. > > This however makes me wonder if "diff-index -B -M" should say B is copied > (instead of being renamed) from A and A is modified in such a case. I do > not think we would want to make such a change without thinking things, > through. Oh, heh, my patch doesn't help in that case. It's still modify + rename with it, of course, as -B still breaks the stuff apart. Me being confused about -M reporting copies in some cases remains though, I had really expected that only -C would detect copies. Of course, this confusion is purely from a user's point of view, I have zero knowledge about the involved code... Björn -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
