Re: What's cooking in git.git (Oct 2019, #04; Tue, 15)

From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Oct 16, 2019, 01:25 UTC
Message-ID: <xmqq8splbhxf.fsf@gitster-ct.c.googlers.com>
In-Reply-To: <CABPp-BHnSG+PtnU=jKHW2_hfLtBK1Sib_W+nqY08gGj8yHGCgw@mail.gmail.com>

Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> writes:

Show 13 quoted lines

>> * en/merge-recursive-directory-rename-fixes (2019-10-12) 2 commits
>>   (merged to 'next' on 2019-10-15 at ebfdc3ff7b)
>>  + merge-recursive: fix merging a subdirectory into the root directory
>>  + merge-recursive: clean up get_renamed_dir_portion()
>>
>>  A few glitches in the heuristic in merge-recursive to infer file
>>  movements based on movements of other files in the same directory
>>  have been corrected.
>>
>>  Will merge to 'master'.
>
> I'm surprised this one was merged straight down to next; perhaps I
> should have highlighted my plans a bit clearer in the thread?

My mistake. I am willing to revert the merge to give the topic a clean slate. Just tell me so.

Thanks.

> Also, a very minor point but "glitches" may be misleading; it suggests
> (to me at least) a malfunction rather than a failure to trigger,...

I used the word to mean a failure to trigger (after all, a heuristic that fails to trigger when most people would naturelly expect it to is showing a glitch in that case). A better phrasing, please?