From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.9 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4B4691F8C2 for ; Tue, 9 Feb 2021 19:18:47 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S233554AbhBITOw (ORCPT ); Tue, 9 Feb 2021 14:14:52 -0500 Received: from pb-smtp2.pobox.com ([64.147.108.71]:50254 "EHLO pb-smtp2.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S233267AbhBITFe (ORCPT ); Tue, 9 Feb 2021 14:05:34 -0500 Received: from pb-smtp2.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 09C0BAFE49; Tue, 9 Feb 2021 13:59:42 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; s=sasl; bh=ujclM2M191oD2puA6tl6lY2o6L4=; b=L1iSKp My5FyYzgJQNCZvKYetVqBoBiI78ja/yIFN6AgwvwwBRnxLvNmSz/WFiB/clnZZUq 9h/uZAsIU7Z4GrbMZ39h7/UJoOUJZRoMSObNdkuxz9Ye82MaCQVtph5RFIDqlnzA yMKThLN5QMFVUzWT+OYP4kZOG72naRe32vzAo= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; q=dns; s=sasl; b=EBtJblCBF0gabLkNTsaWPMWuVV9KkEeF 3KM3KIUw3NL3+9Qy+13yT6aV03OGHjq5onkhdP/Fdzrl2qks0SASc6rmlzLqr8pC zY7l2hDQwxiaGMkIo3/uOdgu2bR9blbEYbGwJIX9+y5lcVr1DblcuGG1N1c2wpLo ZknbtOIsz74= Received: from pb-smtp2.nyi.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 00C80AFE48; Tue, 9 Feb 2021 13:59:42 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [34.74.119.39]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 7E024AFE47; Tue, 9 Feb 2021 13:59:41 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) From: Junio C Hamano To: Elijah Newren Cc: Derrick Stolee , Elijah Newren via GitGitGadget , Git Mailing List , Derrick Stolee , Jonathan Tan , Taylor Blau , Jeff King Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/4] diffcore-rename: guide inexact rename detection based on basenames References: <48a208c2-75fe-773e-aa2a-12a90dd06ddd@gmail.com> Date: Tue, 09 Feb 2021 10:59:40 -0800 In-Reply-To: (Elijah Newren's message of "Tue, 9 Feb 2021 09:41:16 -0800") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.1.90 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Pobox-Relay-ID: F726EF82-6B08-11EB-A7D2-74DE23BA3BAF-77302942!pb-smtp2.pobox.com Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Elijah Newren writes: > Since I didn't know what to use, though, and I didn't want to get a > different set of numbers for the final commit message on the speedup > achieved if I'm just going to throw them away and recompute once I > find out what Junio wants here, I did intentionally set the > computation to just give us minimum_score, for now. I thought Derrick earlier suggested "half-way", which I found was probably a reasonable starting point. So instead of 5, divide by 8 and multiply both by 4 or something and perhaps allow a debugging knob to tweak to see what works the best in the real histories during the refinement phase of the feature?