From: Michael Witten <mfwitten@mit.edu>
Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2007 02:07:05 GMT
Subject: Re: Proposed git mv behavioral change
Message-ID: <7F18F52A-3D57-4510-B71B-69D43480126E@MIT.EDU>
In-Reply-To: <20071019015715.GW14735@spearce.org>


On 18 Oct 2007, at 9:57:15 PM, Shawn O. Pearce wrote:

> Michael Witten <mfwitten@MIT.EDU> wrote:
>> On 18 Oct 2007, at 11:47:32 AM, lmage11@twcny.rr.com wrote:
>>
>>> I don't know exactly how git manages the index
>>> internally, but a
>>> shortcut for this would be to simply rename the index entry in  
>>> place.
>>
>> Seems like the shortcut would lose the history and confuse git.
>
> No.  It wouldn't.  The index has no knowledge of history of anything.

I mean to say, if only the index is changed,
then git won't be informed about the necessary
git-{add/rm}'s, as in the following (is this
not so?):

> You're saying that, currently, 'git-mv A.txt path/B.txt'
> does this:
> 	
> 	mv A.txt path/B.txt
> 	git add path/B.txt
> 	git rm  A.txt
>
> So that A.txt is indeed moved to path/B.txt, but now
> A_dirty has been added to the index.
>
> What you want to happen is the following:
> 	
> 	git show HEAD:A.txt > path/B.txt
> 	git add path/B.txt
> 	mv A.txt B.txt
> 	git rm A.txt