Re: Choosing between "renaming" and "copy"
- From
Andreas Ericsson <ae@op5.se>
- Date
- Mar 12, 2009, 14:44 UTC
- Message-ID
- <49B91FC9.6090700@op5.se>
- In-Reply-To
- <2009-03-12-14-01-15+trackit+sam@rfc1149.net>
Samuel Tardieu wrote:
Show 13 quoted lines
> I renamed a file in my repository, and made a slightly modified copy
> of it. It looks like GIT gets confused on which one is the renaming
> and which one is the copy, and doesn't favour the 100% identical one
> to be chosen as the renaming.
>
> Not a big deal, but maybe git could be more clever here.
>
> % git commit -m "Split into flash and ram alternatives."
> [stm32-sk 601462c] Split into flash and ram alternatives.
> 3 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> copy Demo/CORTEX_STM32SK_GCC/{stm32f103r8t6.ld => stm32f103r8t6_flash.ld} (100%)
> rename Demo/CORTEX_STM32SK_GCC/{stm32f103r8t6.ld => stm32f103r8t6_ram.ld} (98%)
> There isn't that much more to be clever about, really. One is a rename+edit, the other is a copy. The other way around would have been copy+edit + rename which isn't necessarily an improvement.
Looking at how git internally[1] does things and remembering the meanings of "copy" and "rename" though, it makes perfect sense to leave it as-is.
[1]. In git, the content is part of the (object) name, so changing the content makes it closer to a rename than a copy, while changing the location always makes it a copy, although sometimes coupled with a delete.
-- Andreas Ericsson andreas.ericsson@op5.se OP5 AB www.op5.se Tel: +46 8-230225 Fax: +46 8-230231 Considering the successes of the wars on alcohol, poverty, drugs and terror, I think we should give some serious thought to declaring war on peace.