(Sorry for the delayed reply -- I'm living on tape delay for a bit.)
On Mon, 2005-04-18 at 22:05 -0400, Kevin Smith wrote:
The other is replace very instace of identifier `foo` with
identifier`bar`.
That could be derived, however, by a particularly smart parser [1].
No, it can't.
On Tue, 2005-04-19 at 10:22 +0200, Juliusz Chroboczek wrote:
Aye, that will require some metadata on the git side (the hack,
suggested by Linus, of using git hashes to notice moves won't work).
So, why won't it work?
Because two files can legitimately have identical contents without
On Mon, 2005-04-18 at 08:20 -0400, David Roundy wrote:
Putting darcs patches *into* git is more complicated, since we'll want to
get them back again without modification. Normal hunk patches would be
no problem, provided we never change our diff algorithm (which has been
discussed recently,
On Mon, 2005-04-18 at 21:04 +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The other is replace very instace of identifier `foo` with identifier`bar`.
That could be derived, however, by a particularly smart parser [1].
Alternately, that itself could be embedded in the comment for patches
sourced from darcs. Of
4 matches
Mail list logo
