Re: [PATCH on en/rename-progress] diffcore-rename: make diff-tree -l0 mean -l<large>
- Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2017 12:04:21 -0800
- From: Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@xxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [PATCH on en/rename-progress] diffcore-rename: make diff-tree -l0 mean -l<large>
Elijah Newren wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 10:32 AM, Jonathan Tan <jonathantanmy@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> In the documentation of diff-tree, it is stated that the -l option
>> "prevents rename/copy detection from running if the number of
>> rename/copy targets exceeds the specified number". The documentation
>> does not mention any special handling for the number 0, but the
>> implementation before commit b520abf ("sequencer: warn when internal
>> merge may be suboptimal due to renameLimit", 2017-11-14) treated 0 as a
>> special value indicating that the rename limit is to be a very large
>> number instead.
>> The commit b520abf changed that behavior, treating 0 as 0. Revert this
>> behavior to what it was previously. This allows existing scripts and
>> tools that use "-l0" to continue working. The alternative (to allow
>> "-l0") is probably much less useful, since users can just refrain from
I think in the parenthesis you mean 'to allow "-l0" to suppress rename
detection', since this patch is all about allowing '-l0' already.
>> specifying -M and/or -C to have the same effect.
>> Signed-off-by: Jonathan Tan <jonathantanmy@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> Note that this patch is built on en/rename-progress.
>> We noticed this through an automated test for an internal tool - the
>> tool uses git diff-tree with -l0, and no longer produces the same
>> results as before.
> Thanks for testing that version and sending along the fix.
> I suspect the commit referenced twice in the commit message should
> have been 9f7e4bfa3b ("diff: remove silent clamp of renameLimit",
> 2017-11-13) rather than b520abf ("sequencer: warn when internal merge
> may be suboptimal due to renameLimit", 2017-11-14).
> Other than that minor issue, patch and test looks good to me.
Thanks, both. Looking at that patch, the fix is obviously correct.
With Elijah's commit message tweak,
Reviewed-by: Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@xxxxxxxxx>