| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
How were the moved/renamed files accounted for ?How were the moved/renamed files accounted for ?Posted Mar 1, 2010 3:42 UTC (Mon) by phdm (guest, #56884)In reply to: How were the moved/renamed files accounted for ? by dlang Parent article: How old is our kernel?
In my experience, 'git log -M' did never give the full log of a single file.
I have now discovered that 'git log --follow' does.
(Log in to post comments)
How were the moved/renamed files accounted for ? Posted Mar 2, 2010 1:13 UTC (Tue) by jnareb (subscriber, #46500) [Link] In my experience, 'git log -M' did never give the full log of a single file. I have now discovered that 'git log --follow' does.Actually the problem is that in "git log -M filename" the filename part is path limiter, and is applied (for history simplification) before rename detection, and that is why you need "git log --follow filename". "git log -M" (no pathspec), or "git log -M directory" should work as expected.
How were the moved/renamed files accounted for ? Posted Mar 2, 2010 12:47 UTC (Tue) by nye (guest, #51576) [Link]
So -M (detect renames) seems from a user's point of view to act differently depending on whether you're trying to log a file or the whole project.
This seems like a good, specific example of one of those usability issues people are always handwaving about.
|
|
||||||||||||