On 11/02/15 21:42, Daniel-Constantin Mierla wrote: > On 11/02/15 21:24, Olle E. Johansson wrote: >> On 11 Feb 2015, at 21:16, Daniel-Constantin Mierla <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> You should use >>> >>> git mv ... >>> >>> in order to preserve the history of the file. >>> >>> Removing existing one and adding it is losing that. >> I did use "git mv" >> >> $ git commit >> [master e0a20eb] app_java Rename module interface file >> 8 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) >> rename modules/app_java/{java_mod.c => app_java_mod.c} (100%) >> rename modules/app_java/{java_mod.h => app_java_mod.h} (100%) >> >> It is weird that the mail message shows something else... > It seems to be git behaviour when the change is consistent. Found on the > net that the rename itself should be a single commit in order to > preserve history in 'git log'. See: > > - > https://coderwall.com/p/_csouq/renaming-and-changing-files-in-git-without-losing-history > > Even with a rename as part of a bigger change, history can be seen when > using --follow for git-log, like: > > git log --follow modules/uac_redirect/uac_redirect.c > > But git web viewer don't do that usually. Therefore, it is better to do > just the rename as single commit. Eventually will work fine to see all > history. > Looks like that doesn't work either -- digging in web more revealed:
- https://git.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/GitFaq#Why_does_Git_not_.22track.22_renames.3F Anyhow, git log --follow should be good enough. Also, git-blame does --follow automatically. I guess doing all in one commit is ok, with same results as split commit for just file rename. Cheers, Daniel -- Daniel-Constantin Mierla http://twitter.com/#!/miconda - http://www.linkedin.com/in/miconda Kamailio World Conference, May 27-29, 2015 Berlin, Germany - http://www.kamailioworld.com _______________________________________________ sr-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.sip-router.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-dev
