Detecting renames

[timeless]

On Sun, Jun 6, 2010 at 11:26 PM, Dirkjan Ochtman <dirkjan at ochtman.nl> wrote:
>> What is up with Mozilla that we never seem to hear from them directly?

Hey, we're much better than Symbian ;-). Although it was good to see
Simon poke recently. Apparently my complaint about that security
repository was noticed by their team, but since they couldn't
reproduce, they hadn't sent any comments upstream :o.

> Actually bhearsum just filed a bug the day before yesterday, we hear
> from timeless pretty much every day, bsmedberg has filed bugs before,
> Callek has filed bugs before and dbaron speaks up on the mailing list
> now and then. So it's not all bad, but yes, they could do better.

> Theirs is a bug community, though, and also apparently they have a
> model where they make me responsible for upstreaming most stuff that's
> an issue for them.

This specific issue came up very recently. I just discovered it
yesterday while doing rebases. I did assume that djc would deal w/ any
investigation.

> That won't help the simple case, though, right? Where I want to move a
> whole lotta stuff around and not use hg (because that gets tedious),
> and then use addremove, but forget -s? I actually forgot that
> addremove doesn't do renames by default (and you can't see the
> difference from status), so I think making -s100 the default is
> exactly right.

I'd like to point out that anything which assumes people upgrade don't
work very well. Callek was of course using 1.2.1, and we (#mercurial)
do see people using random old versions of Mercurial from time to
time. Sadly it seems MozillaBuild is still currently shipping 1.2.1.
If it makes sense to add a "default.addremove = -s100" bit, then
people can try to distribute that information virally, but our
transmission rates aren't so good.

https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=557210 asks to upgrade it to 1.5.x