From: Ben Knoble <ben.knoble@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 26 May 2026 21:29:02 GMT
Subject: Re: git mv after the fact
Message-ID: <85D5E150-BD78-4FC5-83DC-10DEBAC6EA4B@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAPx1Gvd9+z0th9whCbcA60_bWproPp+kwp3qDmhQOe4G=0=E6A@mail.gmail.com>


> Le 26 mai 2026 à 12:46, Chris Torek <chris.torek@gmail.com> a écrit :
> 
> On Tue, May 26, 2026 at 6:18 AM Frieder Hannenheim <mail@fhannenheim.net> wrote:
>> I'd like to propose a new flag for git mv, that updates the index
>> like git mv normally would but does not move the file. ...
> 
> You may already know this, but technically no flag is needed:
> you can just "git add" the new name and "git rm" the old one,
> with the same effect.

Or indeed, « git add old new » should also work, I think.

> A flag for "git mv" would be convenient (and slightly more
> efficient, not in terms of storage but in terms of CPU time
> spent discovering that the contents under the new name
> already exist in the object database). But Git will discover
> the rename on its own in the usual way regardless of how
> you get to that point.
> 
> Chris