On Fri, 20 Oct 2006, Petr Baudis wrote:
Dear diary, on Fri, Oct 20, 2006 at 07:48:58PM CEST, I got a letter
where Linus Torvalds [off-list ref] said that...
quoted
So yeah, I've seen a few strange cases myself, but they've actually been
interesting. Like seeing how much of a file was just a copyright license,
and then a file being considered a "copy" just because it didn't actually
introduce any real new code.
Well it's certainly "interesting" and fun to see, but is it equally fun
to handle mismerges caused by a broken detection?
I've talked to some people who really didn't mind (or even liked) Git's
heuristics when it came to _inspecting_ movement of content, but were
really nervous about merge following such heuristics.
remember, git only stores the results. so when you are merging it doesn't even look for renames.
the only time you get renames is after-the-fact when you ask git for a report about what changed. then (if you enable rename detection) it will tell you what files have changed, and what files look like they may have been renames (possibly with changes). but if you don't ask git to look for renames it won't bother and you can just ignore the concept entirely.
or if you only want complete renames (as opposed to rename + change) then use the option to tell it that you don't want to consider it a rename unless it's 100% the same (or 99%, or whatever satisfies you)
David Lang