From: Frieder Hannenheim <mail@fhannenheim.net>
Date: Tue, 26 May 2026 16:50:39 GMT
Subject: Re: git mv after the fact
Message-ID: <1343ca51-c8a8-4a86-9b46-02468a92b98f@fhannenheim.net>
In-Reply-To: <CAPx1Gvd9+z0th9whCbcA60_bWproPp+kwp3qDmhQOe4G=0=E6A@mail.gmail.com>

In my particular use case I changed a patch to be a git patch with a
commit message and different filename so the move was not discovered
automatically. But I'm not sure if I staged the files so maybe it would
have been discovered.

Frieder

On 26.05.26 18:40, Chris Torek wrote:
> On Tue, May 26, 2026 at 6:18 AM Frieder Hannenheim <mail@fhannenheim.net> wrote:
>> I'd like to propose a new flag for git mv, that updates the index
>> like git mv normally would but does not move the file. ...
> You may already know this, but technically no flag is needed:
> you can just "git add" the new name and "git rm" the old one,
> with the same effect.
>
> A flag for "git mv" would be convenient (and slightly more
> efficient, not in terms of storage but in terms of CPU time
> spent discovering that the contents under the new name
> already exist in the object database). But Git will discover
> the rename on its own in the usual way regardless of how
> you get to that point.
>
> Chris