From: Nicolas Pitre <nico@cam.org>
Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2007 18:35:03 GMT
Subject: Re: Rename handling
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:

> 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