Re: [RFC] rename detection: allow more renames

Jeff King [off-list ref] writes:

On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 05:35:06PM +0100, Andreas Krey wrote:

quoted

The code talks about limiting the size
of the rename matrix, but as far as I
can see, the matrix itself never exists
as such, and the only thing that could
actually overflow is the computation
for the progress indication. This
can be fixed by reporting just the
destinations checked instead of the
combinations, since we only update
the progress once per destination
anyway.

I didn't dig in the archive, but I think we discussed the "just show
progress for destinations" before. The problem you run into is that the
items aren't a good indication of the amount of work. You really are
doing n*m work, so if you just count "m", it can be very misleading if
"n" is high (and vice versa).

Right.

With s/never exists/no longer exists/ in the above observation, I
agree that this topic is sensible that it revisits the stale comment
from days back when we did use the matrix.