Re: [ANNOUNCE] Example Cogito Addon - cogito-bundle

On Fri, Oct 20, 2006 at 06:59:17PM -0400, Jeff King wrote:

On Fri, Oct 20, 2006 at 08:12:10PM +0200, Jan Hudec wrote:

quoted

At this point, I expect the tree to look like this:
A$ ls -R
.:
data/
data:
hello.txt
A$ cat data/hello.txt
Hello World!

Git does what you expect here.

quoted

A$ VCT mv data greetings
A$ VCT commit -m "Renamed the data directory to greetings"
B$ echo "Goodbye World!" > data/goodbye.txt
B$ VCT add data/goodbye.txt
B$ VCT commit -m "Added goodbye message."
A$ VCT merge B

And now I expect to have tree looking like this:

A$ ls -R
.:
greetings/
greetings:
hello.txt
goodbye.txt

Git does not do what you expect here. It notes that files moved, but it
does not have a concept of directories moving.  Git could, even without
file-ids or special patch types, figure out what happened by noting that
every file in data/ was renamed to its analogue in greetings/, and infer
that previously non-existant files in data/ should also be moved to
greetings/.

However, I'm not sure that I personally would prefer that behavior. In
some cases you might actually WANT data/goodbye.txt, and in some other
cases a conflict might be more appropriate. In any case, I would rather
the SCM do the simple and predictable thing (which I consider to be
creating data/goodbye.txt) rather than be clever and wrong (even if it's
only wrong a small percentage of the time).

In short, git doesn't do what you expect, but I'm not convinced that
it's a bug or lack of feature, and not simply a difference in desired
behavior.

I still consider it a bug, but different problems of the file-id
solution have already been described in this thread that I consider bugs
as well.

Besides I start to think that it should be actually possible to solve
this case with the git-style approach. I have to state beforehand, that
I don't know how the most recent git algorithm works, but I imagine
there is some kind of 'brackets' saying the text is in a given file. Now
if those 'brackets' were not flat, but nested, ie. instead of saying
'this is in foo/bar' it would say 'this is in bar is in foo', the
difference when renaming directory would only affect the 'outer bracket'
and therefore merge correctly with adding content inside it.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  				- Jan Hudec `Bulb' [off-list ref]