On 06/06/2013 01:57 AM, Arnas Milaševičius wrote:
On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 3:23 AM, Brian Paul <bri...@vmware.com
<mailto:bri...@vmware.com>> wrote:
On 06/05/2013 03:25 PM, Kenneth Graunke wrote:
On 06/05/2013 12:09 PM, Arnas Milasevicius wrote:
---
src/mesa/Makefile.sources | 2 +-
src/mesa/SConscript | 2 +-
src/mesa/main/draw_validate.c | 745
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++__++++++++++++
3 files changed, 747 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
create mode 100644 src/mesa/main/draw_validate.c
It looks like this patch leaves the old api_validate.c file in
place, so
we would have two copies of everything. The proper way to do
this is:
$ cd src/mesa/main
$ git mv api_validate.c draw_validate.c
$ <edit Makefile.sources and SConscript>
$ git commit -a
That said...Brian, was this one of your ideas? I don't see much
point
to renaming this file, and renaming files makes it harder to go
back in
history with git blame and such. So unless there's a good
reason, I'd
rather leave it be.
Yes, it's from my personal Mesa to-do list. Your point about
git-blame is well taken so if you'd rather not have the file renamed
we can leave it as-is. It's just another one of those little things
that I've always found annoying.
> So, should I resend it with `git mv` or we will leave this file's name
> as it is?
Kenneth, it turns out that git blame handles file renaming just fine.
You'll see the line-by-line change information, along with the old
filename when you do git blame.
Did you, or anyone else, have any other objections?
-Brian
_______________________________________________
mesa-dev mailing list
mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
