Hi Elijah, On Thu, 30 Aug 2018, Elijah Newren wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 9:58 AM Junio C Hamano <gits...@pobox.com> wrote: > > > > Elijah Newren <new...@gmail.com> writes: > > > > > - Add a flag to turn off directory rename detection, and set the > > > flag for every call from am.c in order to avoid problems like this. > > > > I'd say this is the only practical solution, before you deprecate > > the "pipe format-patch output to am -3" style of "git rebase" (and > > optionally replace with something else). > > I posted a patch a while back to add an --am flag to "git rebase", > make "--am" be implied by options which are still am-specific > (--whitespace, --committer-date-is-author-date, and -C), and change > --merge to be the default. Didn't you also post a patch to fold --merge into the --interactive backend? What's your current state of thinking about this? As to switching from --am as the default: I still think that --am has serious speed advantages over --merge (or for that matter, --interactive). I have no numbers to back that up, though, and I am currently really busy with working on the CI, so I won't be able to measure these numbers, either... Also please note: I converted the `am` backend to pure C (it is waiting at https://github.com/gitgitgadget/git/pull/24, to be submitted after the v2.19.0 RC period). Switching to `--merge` as the default would force me to convert that backend, too ;-) > I'll post it as an RFC again after the various rebase-rewrite series > have settled and merged down...along with my other rebase cleanups > that I was waiting on to avoid conflicts with GSoC stuff. Thanks for waiting! Please note that I am interested, yet I will be on vacation for a couple of weeks in September. Don't let that stop you, though! > > The whole point of "am -3" is to do _better_ than just "patch" with > > minimum amount of information available on the pre- and post- image > > blobs, without knowing the remainder of the tree that the patch did > > not touch. It is not surprising that the heuristics that look at > > the unchanging part of the tree to infer renames that may or may not > > exist guesses incorrectly, either with false positive or negative. > > In the context of "rebase", we always have all the trees that are > > involved. We should be able to do better than "am -3". Right. I think that Elijah's right, and --merge is that "do better" solution. Ciao, Dscho
