On Mon, Oct 16, 2006 at 11:23:53PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
quoted text
> Aaron Bentley <aaron.bentley@utoronto.ca> 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