From: Derrick Stolee <stolee@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 2020 01:29:33 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] rename "sha1-foo" files
Message-ID: <4d1f5c59-db2c-3c88-f3ca-1edcdfb2f99e@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <cover.1609282997.git.martin.agren@gmail.com>

On 12/29/2020 6:52 PM, Martin Ågren wrote:
> We have some source files with filenames such as sha1-lookup.c and
> sha1-name.c containing a few variable names, comments and the like
> referencing "sha1". But they are able to handle SHA-256 as well. Here's
> my attempt at removing "sha1" from the contents and names of these
> files.

I think this is a good effort. Timing is good after the v2.30.0
release. As long as this doesn't conflict drastically with things in
flight, I think this change should "jump the line" and merge with
priority to avoid future conflicts.

It _has_ been bothering me that it was still sha1-file.c.

Oh, and I remembered the one semi-legitimate case to try for exact
renames whenever possible: "git log --follow" will download fewer
blobs in a blobless partial clone (--filter=blob:none). Of course,
this only works if the rule is always followed and is not really a
justification for doubling the number of your patches.

It does make me think that it is worth checking if "git log --follow"
short-circuits the full rename detection if the path it cares about
was found to be an exact rename (so doing a full content-rename check
on the other adds and deletes is worthless). Making a note [1] to
investigate.

[1] https://github.com/gitgitgadget/git/issues/827

Thanks,
-Stolee