Re: git-pull - strange (copy/rename) messages ?!

Petr Baudis <pasky@suse.cz> writes:

I think showing things the Pasky way may be the easiest to understand for this particular case and for the simplest case. The original one would become something like this:

copy Graphics/{PaletteGroups.cs => PaletteCategories.cs} (80%) copy Graphics/PaletteGroups.cs => Plot/Dialogs/Dialog.cs (75%) ... copy Graphics/PaletteGroups.cs => Runtime/Scripting/Script.cs (75%) copy Graphics/PaletteGroups.cs => Runtime/Scripting/ScriptLibrary.cs (64%) delete Graphics/PaletteGroups.cs

That is, if you are interested in Plot/Dialogs/Dialog.cs, you know where it came from. If you are interested in Graphics/PaletteGroups.cs, you can tell it disappeared.

That is, you need to look at only one line to know what funny things happened to one path.

However, I suspect that this requires moderate amount of surgery on the diff output routine (the last stage). I have a feeling that git-apply may also need to be told about it when applying such a patch.

The biggest drawback doing things the Pasky way would be that the textual diff would need to contain the whole file removal of Graphics/PaletteGroups.cs. Do we want to bloat the output for this? I personally do not think it is worth it.

We could cheat by only changing the git-apply --summary side, to implement either Pasky or Daniel proposal, but that would make output from 'git-diff -p | git-apply --summary' and 'git-diff -r --name-status -r' inconsistent, which I'd rather avoid.

I think all three (i.e. current, Pasky, Daniel) logically make sense, and it is to a certain degree just a matter of personal taste. Let's try doing nothing for now and see if people get used to it ;-).