On Thu, Aug 02, 2012 at 07:08:25PM +0700, Nguyen Thai Ngoc Duy wrote:
> > I implemented (1a). Implementing (1b) would be easy, but for a full-on
> > cache (especially for "-C"), I think the resulting size might be
> > prohibitive.
> (1a) is good regardless rename overrides. Why don't you polish and
> submit it? We can set some criteria to limit the cache size while
> keeping computation reasonably low. Caching rename scores for file
> pairs that has file size larger than a limit is one. Rename matrix
> size could also be a candidate. We could even cache just rename scores
> for recent commits (i.e. close to heads) only with the assumption that
> people diff/apply recent commits more often.
I'll polish and share it. I'm still not 100% sure it's a good idea,
because introducing an on-disk cache means we need to _manage_ that
cache. How big will it be? Who will prune it when it gets too big? By
what criteria? And so on.
But if it's all hidden behind a config option, then it won't hurt people
who don't use it. And people who do use it can gather data on how the
> > All solutions under (2) suffer from the same problem: they are accurate
> > only for a single diff. For other diffs, you would either have to not
> > use the feature, or you would be stuck traversing the history and
> > assigning a temporary file identity (e.g., given commits A->B->C, and in
> > A->B we rename "foo" to "bar", the diff between A and C could discover
> > that A's "foo" corresponds to C's "bar").
> Yeah. If we go with manual overrides, I expect users to deal with
> these manually too. IOW they'll need to create a mapping for A->C
> themselves. We can help detect that there are manual overrides in some
> cases, like merge, and let users know that manual overrides are
> ignored. For merge, I think we can just check for all commits while
> traversing looking for bases.
Yeah, merges are a special case, in that we know the diff we perform
will always have a direct-ancestor relationship (since it is always
between a tip and the merge base).
> > But there is not much point in making it machine-readable, since the
> > interesting machine-readable things we do with renames are:
> > 1. Show the diff against the rename src, which can often be easier to
> > read. Except that if rename detection did not find it, it is
> > probably _not_ going to be easier to read.
> Probably. Still it helps "git log --follow" to follow the correct
> track in the 1% case that rename detection does go wrong.
Thanks. I didn't think of --follow, but that is a good counterpoint to
> > 2. Applying content to the destination of a merge. But you're almost
> > never doing the diff between a commit and its parent, so the
> > information would be useless.
> Having a way to interfere rename detection, even manually, could be
> good in this case if it reduces conflicts. We could feed rename
> overrides using command line.
Yeah. I think I'd start with letting you feed pairs to diff_options,
give it a command-line option to see how useful it is, and then later on
consider a mechanism for extracting those pairs automatically from
commits or notes.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html