Linus Torvalds [off-list ref] writes:
And the bug is that we didn't even ask for copy detection! This just
confuses merging more.
Yeah, I think it is probably a good idea to really limit the rename
detection only to renames at least inside merge-recursive. The static
variable does look ugly but it shouldn't be a rocket surgery to pass it
down if we want to.
On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 4:52 PM, Junio C Hamano [off-list ref] wrote:
Yeah, I think it is probably a good idea to really limit the rename
detection only to renames at least inside merge-recursive. The static
variable does look ugly but it shouldn't be a rocket surgery to pass it
down if we want to.
Here's a slight update. It still has the "too ugly to live"
if-statment without proper indentation, but it now changes
"for_each_hash()" to pass in a flag value and uses that.
It also fixes one of the tests that depended on the "find copies"
behavior for its result to actually ask for copies now that we don't
give them unless you do.
Linus
On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 5:03 PM, Linus Torvalds
[off-list ref] wrote:
It also fixes one of the tests that depended on the "find copies"
behavior for its result to actually ask for copies now that we don't
give them unless you do.
Gahh. Here's all of them - there were six cases.
Linus