No subject

"-X subtree=/some/path".  There's also a subtree strategy, which you'd
get with "-s subtree", but it is guessing how to do the path shifting.


> <rant>I don't understand why version control systems don't take
> directories and renames more seriously, because this stuff is part
> of the development cycle and should be recorded like any other
> change.</rant>

Meta: JFYI, not only does git not track renames, it doesn't do that
*intentionally*.  The exact arguments for/against are irrelevant, but
the main point is that the decision was made very deliberately, and
therefore you can't really accuse them of not taking it seriously
enough even if you disagree with the decision.

Concrete: I said this many times, and it's important to remind people
of this especially now -- because git relies on detecting renames, it
is *MUCH* better to commit just renames, without changes to file
contents.  Yes -- even if that means that there's a commit with an
uncompilable tree, the potential minor hassle to future bisecters is
smaller than the potential to bad rename detection damages.

-- 
          ((lambda (x) (x x)) (lambda (x) (x x)))          Eli Barzilay:
                    http://barzilay.org/                   Maze is Life!