Re: [ANNOUNCE] Git wiki

[Jakub Narebski <jnareb@gmail.com>]

Jakub Narebski wrote:

> Junio C Hamano wrote:
> 
>> Petr Baudis <pasky@suse.cz> writes:
>> 
>>> But the non-obviously important part here to note is that the branch B
>>> merely "corrects a typo on a comment somewhere" - the latest versions in
>>> branch A and branch B are always compared for renames, therefore if
>>> branch A renamed the file and branch B sums up to some larger-scale
>>> changes in the file, it still won't be merged properly.
>> 
>> I probably am guilty of starting this misinformation, but the
>> code does not compare the latest in A and B for rename
>> detection; it compares (O, A) and (O, B).
>> 
>> But the end result is the same - what you say is correct.  If a
>> path (say O to A) that renamed has too big a change, then no
>> matter how small the changes are on the other path (O to B),
>> rename detection can be fooled.  We could perhaps alleviate it
>> by following the whole commit chain.
> 
> Or perhaps by helper information about renames, entered either by git-mv
> (and git-cp) or rename detection at commit, e.g. in the following form
> 
>         note at <commit-sha1> was-in <pathname>
>         note at <commit-sha1> was-in <pathname>
> 
> (with the obvious limit of this "note header" solution is that it wouldn't
> work for filenames and directory name containing "\n"). I'm not sure if
> <pathname> should be just basename, of full pathname.

Erm, I'm sorry, forget the implementation which wouldn't work. The idea was
to accumulate renames and contents moving information, and remember at
which commit it occured. But it's place (as a _helper_ information) is
perhaps in separate structure.

-- 
Jakub Narebski
Warsaw, Poland