Re: [1.8.0] reorganize the mess that the source tree has become

From: Jay Soffian <jaysoffian@gmail.com>
Date: Feb 1, 2011, 07:24 UTC
Message-ID: <AANLkTinx9HnKpyjqc34sGnDAiChB67Nd68apOhz9HEFJ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <20110131231210.GD14419@sigill.intra.peff.net>

On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 6:12 PM, Jeff King <peff@peff.net> wrote:

Show 5 quoted lines

> And no matter what your model, renames can be annoying. On-going topics
> will have a painful rebase or merge. And people looking at history will
> have to deal with the code-base having different names at different
> points. Yeah, you can say it's all just "content", but the filenames we
> put things in are actually useful.

I have been dealing with this quite a bit lately as Chromium has been doing mass renaming. It's no small project and sometimes those merges are big:

[diff]
	renames = copies
	renameLimit = 2000

:-)

What I can say is, yes, it's annoying, but also: git does quite a decent job of it. I've found myself having to do this occasionally, but not too often:

  git diff ...MERGE_HEAD -- /path/to/old/name | patch /path/to/new/name

(Typically when a header is renamed, a stub is left in place at the old name which just includes the new name, and the local changes don't come across to the new name 100% cleanly.)

Anyway, I would welcome git.git getting a little taste of that. :-) :-) :-)

j.