-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Linus Torvalds wrote:
No need to be aggressive about this. Yes, it's true that file identity
doesn't directly solve this problem, but it doesn't prove that an
identity-based approach is wrong.
In the end, everything comes down to identity of some kind. Because if
you're going to apply someone else's changes, you must apply them to the
same thing that they changed.
Git determines identity based on content, while bzr has the user
indicate it. Both approaches work.
Bzr supports merging based on line identity (our weave merge, not our
knit merge). At the moment, our concept of line identity is based on
file identity, but there's no reason it has to stay that way.
I think you're wrong about that. There's nothing stopping bzr from
inferring a file split, or even explicitly recording it. bzr doesn't
record copies, because we think there are no sane merge semantics across
copies.
I notice that blame has an option to limit the annotation to recent
history. I can only assume that is for performance reasons. bzr
annotate doesn't need a feature like that, because annotations are
explicit in bzr's storage format. I expect that even if we were to
extend annotate to track content across files, it would still be so fast
that we wouldn't need it.
Aaron
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFFbGy70F+nu1YWqI0RAt75AKCAy0ALi0IKzqZpgnavJrx97+lhDgCfaMSe
fs4Lt77k1/OXC82aFbh5pKg=
=/OiA
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-
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