2013/1/3 Kamil Dudka <kdudka_at_redhat.com>:
>> I haven't tested this myself, but from my experience with previous
>> renames, GitHub and all the other tools in the git ecosystem will show
>> you the history till the last rename, but won't automatically follow
>> the history before that point.
>
> I am not sure about the web interface of github, but you can still use
> 'git log --follow' to list the history of a file beyond renames.

Thank you very much. I did not know that this parameter exists. Just
for the record, here is a partial output of git log --follow -p to
show the renaming indication:

  [...]
  diff --git a/lib/ssluse.c b/lib/curl_ssluse.c
  similarity index 100%
  rename from lib/ssluse.c
  rename to lib/curl_ssluse.c
  [...]

>> And this basically renders my vote obsolete. Either way, the git
>> history is now written and this means that it can't be the reason for
>> a decision.
>
> I disagree with the above statement. If we revert the mass rename now, all
> bug fixes committed from now on will be easier to cherry-pick for the old
> versions of curl.

That's exactly what I meant with the following sentence:
> In my opinion the decision for or against the renaming
> should now be based on other technical and organisational aspects,
> like distributions and such.

Therefore I completely agree with your point. I just meant that the
idea of "just revert the commit and everything is fine" does not work
that easily.

Best regards,
Marc
-------------------------------------------------------------------
List admin: http://cool.haxx.se/list/listinfo/curl-library
Etiquette: http://curl.haxx.se/mail/etiquette.html
Received on 2013-01-03