Re: Rename handling

From: Nicolas Pitre <nico@cam.org>
Date: Mar 19, 2007, 18:35 UTC
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.0.83.0703191427140.18328@xanadu.home>
In-Reply-To: <45FED31B.8070307@midwinter.com>

On Mon, 19 Mar 2007, Steven Grimm wrote:

Show 7 quoted lines

> So to answer your question, in my opinion if 100% guaranteed renames are high
> on your priority list, then Mercurial might be the better option for now. In
> practice, I've found that git's 99+% rename detection has yet to fail on me
> aside from the above directory renaming case, but at the end of the day it
> *is* guessing at your renames after the fact.
> 
> Okay, git gurus, show me no mercy. :)

Well... the fact that you _still_ use GIT even in the face of a 1% probability that it might guess renames wrong (according to your own numbers) should mean that you didn't felt switching to Mercurial was worth the 100% guarantee for rename identification.

And some will argue that explicit renames are susceptible to user error misidentifying the rename too, certainly in the 1% figure of all renames if not more.

So maybe, just maybe, at the end of the day getting renames right 100% of the time instead of 99% is not such a big thing after all.

Nicolas