On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 06:33:22AM -0500, Eric Blake wrote: > On 07/11/2017 02:58 AM, Kashyap Chamarthy wrote:
[...] > >> A shame that git rename detection doesn't see these as the same rough > >> contents, but not too bad. > > > > _Should_ it detect? > > It depends on the similarities between the file, and on whether you have > 'git config diff.renames true' set (there are some other parameters you > can set to fine-tune how much effort git expends on detecting file > renames, but the defaults are usually good enough). I see, noted. [...] > > Indeed -- the things you point out further below were already > > pre-existing. > > > > Asking out of curiosity: You say it is nicer split because we'll retain > > the `git-bisect`-ability? Or just to keep text motion and actual > > changes separate? (I think both.) > > bisect-ability is important on code, but less so on docs. If you were > doing code motion, I'd absolutely insist that cleanups be separate from > the motion; but here I don't have a strong preference (separating the > cleanups DOES make it easier to perform a backport of the cleanup > without having to backport the rename, but backporting docs tends to be > less of a priority than backporting code functionality). Yep, fully agree with you, and I guessed as much. Given this understanding, I'll just fix your feedback in this series. Thanks. -- /kashyap
