Johan Corveleyn wrote: > On Fri, May 28, 2010 at 2:11 PM, Stefan Sperling <s...@elego.de> wrote: > > On Fri, May 28, 2010 at 02:07:15PM +0200, Stefan Sperling wrote: > >> Please consider taking a very good look at how Mercurial handles copies > >> when merging. > > > > And BTW, a rename in Mercurial is also a copy+delete. > > That's why I think what they are doing is quite relevant to us. > > Please don't reduce the issue of "rename tracking" (or whatever you > want to call it) to merging. It's just as relevant for updating (cf. > tree conflicts of "local edit, incoming delete" and "local delete, > incoming edit", etc., which you can just as easily get with a normal > update). When there is proper rename tracking, I fully expect these > kinds of tree conflicts to be resolvable automatically (most of the > time). Whether it's a merge or a regular update. > > Unless you consider an update a special kind of merge. However, I > don't think that's the case in the mind of users (at least in my head, > as a user, the two are quite different, I use them in totally > different contexts). That's why I think "Branch-relative renames" is > not such a good term. It couples the rename issue to > branching/merging... It's more than that.
Yup, I am certainly not forgetting updates. Thanks for pointing out that terminology like "branch-relative" may be misleading. - Julian
