On Thu, Jul 21, 2022 at 9:39 AM Phillip Susi [off-list ref] wrote:

Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason [off-list ref] writes:

quoted

This has come up a bunch of times. I think that the thing git itself
should be doing is to lean into the same notion that we use for tracking
renames. I.e. we don't, we analyze history after-the-fact and spot the
renames for you.

I've never been a big fan of that quality of git because it is
inherently unreliable.

Indeed, which would be fine ... if there were a way to tell Git, "no
this is not a rename" or "hey, you missed this rename" but there
isn't.

Reading previous messages, it seems like the
after-the-fact-rename-heuristic makes the Git code simpler. That is a
perfectly valid argument for not supporting "explicit" renames but I
have seen several messages from which I inferred that rename handling
was deemed a "solved problem". And _that_, at least in my experience,
is definitely not the case.