Re: Following renames

> Dear diary, on Sun, Mar 26, 2006 at 05:19:50AM CEST, I got a letter
> where Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org> said that...
> > On Sun, 26 Mar 2006, Petr Baudis wrote:
> > > 
> > >   In [1], Linus suggests a non-core solution. Unfortunately, it doesn't
> > > fly - it requires at least two git-ls-tree calls per revision which
> > > would bog things down awfully (to roughly half of the original speed).
> > 
> > No it doesn't. It requires one git-ls-tree WHEN SOMETHING IS RENAMED.
> > 
> > In other words, basically never.
> 
> Huh? I don't see that now (and caps don't help me see it better). That's
> certainly not what is in [1], and I don't see _how_ to detect the
> renames in this case, and what would I be actually doing git-ls-tree for
> when I've already detected the rename. Based on [1], I'd be doing
> git-ls-tree merely to detect that a file _disappeared_ in the first
> place, I have to do other stuff to detect the renames themselves.
> 
> Dear diary, on Sun, Mar 26, 2006 at 09:35:02AM CEST, I got a letter
> where Ryan Anderson <ryan@michonline.com> said that...
> > A simple example is the first loop in git-annotate.perl.  (Which was
> > basically written by Linus, I just translated it from a
> > shell/pseudo-code example into Perl)
> 
> Thanks for the hint. Unfortunately, this is precisely the thing I want
> to avoid, that is essentially reimplementing part of git-rev-list - to
> do something good, I would have to do my own toposort and merge by date
> between parallel lines. OTOH, I might just construct a large revlist
> commandline specifying all the segments I'm interested in and see what
> happens when I run that.
> 
> Besides, doing it in shell would be pretty ugly job (forcing me to
> finally rewrite it in perl is not a bad thing but that'd be a somewhat
> larger project since I share various common routines with other cg
> tools, etc).
>