From: Andreas Ericsson Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2009 14:44:25 GMT Subject: Re: Choosing between "renaming" and "copy" Message-ID: <49B91FC9.6090700@op5.se> In-Reply-To: <2009-03-12-14-01-15+trackit+sam@rfc1149.net> Samuel Tardieu wrote: > 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.