Re: [RFC] use typechange as rename source

From: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Date: Dec 3, 2007, 01:20 UTC
Message-ID: <20071203012022.GA8322@coredump.intra.peff.net>
In-Reply-To: <7v8x4cykkj.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org>

On Sun, Dec 02, 2007 at 11:15:40AM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:

Show 10 quoted lines

> > @@ -250,6 +250,7 @@ static void wt_status_print_updated(struct wt_status *s)
> > +	rev.diffopt.break_opt = 0;
> 
> I have to wonder how much this is going to make things worse in the real
> world, although I agree in the "as we already spend cycles for
> detect_rename why not" sense.
> 
> With the recent change from Alex not to run status when not interactive,
> it probably does not matter.  If we are going to spawn an editor, we are
> dealing with human interaction and even -B -M should not be too bad.

I had more or less the same thinking, but I don't have any real-world numbers. I would be curious to see averages on how diffcore-break compares to diffcore-rename. Just thinking about it, it seems intuitive that breaking would always be cheaper, which means that adding "-B" to "-M" won't have a significant performance impact.

-Peff