git/list[1] front-page[2] threads[3] people[4] search[5] about
 

Re: [idea] File history tracking hints

From
Jacob Keller <jacob.keller@gmail.com>
Date
Sep 11, 2017, 18:47 UTC
Message-ID
<CA+P7+xqFrC9MFm+b65q53_SGK7JJUJFYeeLUgxXd8te5rrg5Rw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To
<CAGZ79kacL7TodpBFmrPJtasjXYVKTVDb-FmM5QJyAPS-+NYf7w@mail.gmail.com>
On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 11:11 AM, Stefan Beller <sbeller@google.com> wrote:
Show 81 quoted lines
> On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 12:11 AM, Pavel Kretov <firegurafiku@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Excuse me if the topic I'm going to raise here has been already discussed
>> on the mailing list, forums, or IRC, but I couldn't find anything related.
>>
>>
>> The problem:
>>
>> Git, being "a stupid content tracker", doesn't try to keep an eye on
>> operations which happens to individual files; things like file renames
>> aren't recorded during commit, but heuristically detected later.
>>
>> Unfortunately, the heuristic can only deal with simple file renames with
>> no substantial content changes; it's helpless when you:
>>
>>  - rename file and change it's content significantly;
>>  - split single file into several files;
>>  - merge several files into another;
>>  - copy entire file from another commit, and do other things like these.
>>
>> However, if we're able to preserve this information, it's possible
>> not only to do more accurate 'git blame', but also merge revisions with
>> fewer conflicts.
>>
>>
>> The proposal:
>>
>> The idea is to let user give hints about what was changed during
>> the commit. For example, if user did a rename which wasn't automatically
>> detected, he would append something like the following to his commit
>> message:
>>
>>     Tracking-hints: rename dev-vcs/git/git-1.0.ebuild ->
>> dev-vcs/git/git-2.0.ebuild
>>
>> or (if full paths of affected files can be unambiguously omitted):
>>
>>     Tracking-hints: rename git-1.0.ebuild -> git-2.0.ebuild
>>
>> There may be other hint types:
>>
>>     Tracking-hint: recreate LICENSE.txt
>>     Tracking-hint: split main.c -> main.c cmdline.c
>>     Tracking-hint: merge linalg.py <- vector.py matrix.py
>>
>> or even something like this:
>>
>>     Tracking-hint: copy json.py <-
>> libs/json.py@4db88291251151d8c5c8e4f20430fa4def2cb2ed
>>
>> If file transformation cannot be described by a single tracking hint, it shall
>> be possible to specify a sequence of hints at once:
>>
>>     Tracking-hint:
>>         split Utils.java -> AppHelpers.java StringHelpers.java
>>         recreate Utils.java
>>
>> Note that in the above example the order of operations really matters, so
>> both lines have to reside in one 'Tracking-hint' block.
>>
>> * * *
>>
>> How do you think, is this idea worth implementing?
>> Any other thoughts on this?
>>
>> -- Pavel Kretov.
>
> This was discussed a couple of times on the mailing list
> (though not recently).
>
> I searched for "rename tracking files site:public-inbox.org/git"
> and came up with
> https://public-inbox.org/git/Pine.LNX.4.58.0504141102430.7211@ppc970.osdl.org/
> (the nearby emails seem to also be relevant to this discussion)
>
> tl:dr: When encoding these hints, you do it at commit time,
> but the heuristic can be improved upon later.
> So you can assume the heuristic is better for the
> common case, as someone will fix the heuristic for the
> common case. Also Gits model is to track objects.

Linus has a pretty long post about this, it's somewhere in that discussion. Essentially, if you bake in rename detection (or other hints) at commit time, then you're stuck with it forever.

Additionally, there are similar but not *quite* the same operations which you probably wouldn't bake into at the start, and the types of questions a user wants to ask isn't known at commit time, but rather known at *debug* time in the future when you're digging up history. In this time frame, the user does know what to care about and what kind of questions to ask, so it's already natural to ask these questions at that time.

Additionally, if you have to generate the heuristic every commit, you're increasing time "wasted" every commit, where as doing the lookup later when a user starts asking questions like during blame or diff would only add time during an operation the user already expects to take some time.

Thanks, Jake

Previous: Stefan BellerNext: Jeff King
Message 3 of 18 in “[idea] File history tracking hints”
  1. Pavel KretovSep 11, 2017
  2. Stefan BellerSep 11, 2017
  3. Jacob KellerSep 11, 2017
  4. Jeff KingSep 11, 2017
  5. Igor DjordjevicSep 11, 2017
  6. Philip OakleySep 11, 2017
  7. Johannes SchindelinSep 13, 2017
  8. Philip OakleySep 14, 2017
  9. Johannes SchindelinSep 29, 2017
  10. Jeff HostetlerSep 30, 2017
  11. Johannes SchindelinSep 30, 2017
  12. Junio C HamanoOct 1, 2017
  13. Stefan BellerOct 2, 2017
  14. Jeff HostetlerOct 2, 2017
  15. Stefan BellerOct 2, 2017
  16. Jeff HostetlerOct 2, 2017
  17. Junio C HamanoOct 3, 2017
  18. Junio C HamanoOct 3, 2017

Read the whole thread, see it on lore, or plain text.

$ cat FOOTERMessages come from the public archive at lore.kernel.org/git, fetched every hour. The front page is chosen and written each morning by an AI editor and can be wrong; the threads themselves are the record. About and API. For agents: an MCP server at https://gitlist.dev/mcp, and any thread, story or person page as Markdown by adding .md to its URL (or sending Accept: text/markdown). Details in /llms.txt.