On Mon, Oct 16, 2006 at 11:23:53PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:

quoted text
> Aaron Bentley  writes:

>

> > Johannes Schindelin wrote:

> >

> >>> You'll note we referred to that bevhavior on the page.  We don't think

> >>> what Git does is the same as supporting renames.  AIUI, some Git users

> >>> feel the same way.

> >>

> >> Oh, we start another flamewar again?

> >

> > I'd hope not.  It sounds as though you feel that supporting renames in

> > the data representation is *wrong*, and therefore it should be an insult

> > to you if we said that Git fully supported renames.

>

> Not recording and not supporting are quite different things.

Yes.  There's a risk of confusing a feature with an implementation

detail.  From http://bazaar-vcs.org/RcsComparisons:
	"If a user can rename a file in the RCS without loosing the RCS

	history for a file, then renames are considered supported. If

	the operation resultes in a delete/add (aka "DA pair"), then

	renames are not considered supported. If the operation results

	in a copy/delete pair, renames are considered "somewhat"

	supported. The problem with copy support is that it is hard to

	define sane merge semantics for copies."
The first sentence sounds like a description of a user-visible feature.

The rest of it sounds like implementation.
And git probably has some deficiencies here, but it'd be more useful to

identify them in terms of things a user can't do.
--b.

-

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in

the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org

More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html