Re: [PATCH] diffcore-rename: favour identical basenames

From: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
Date: Jun 21, 2007, 14:03 UTC
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0706211459140.4059@racer.site>
In-Reply-To: <20070621131915.GD4487@coredump.intra.peff.net>

Hi,

On Thu, 21 Jun 2007, Jeff King wrote:

Show 9 quoted lines

> On Thu, Jun 21, 2007 at 12:52:11PM +0100, Johannes Schindelin wrote:
> 
> > When there are several candidates for a rename source, and one of them
> > has an identical basename to the rename target, take that one.
> 
> That's a reasonable heuristic, but it unfortunately won't match simple
> things like:
> 
>   i386_widget.c -> arch/i386/widget.c

That's right. But every heuristic falls down eventually. Personally, I think basename_same() is good enough, even if the technical challenge to implement a small enough Levenshtein, which still respects directory boundaries somehow (and not just throws them away).

Besides, Levenshtein would introduce a ranking, not a boolean value like basename_same(). And that complicates the code.

All in all, I'd say Levenshtein is not worth the _result_.

Ciao, Dscho