Git doesn't use history to determine merge behavior (edit: in this circumstance). Git behaves like applying patches. Darcs uses the history to make "intelligent" patches.
It's a matter of taste. If you look at Git as having a history, therefore should use the history, yes, it's incorrect. But if you look at it as a patch manager, it's behaving as it should, and Darcs is frighteningly unpredictable - the numbers on the patch might not match the numbers of the lines it modifies.
I side with Git on this. I can generate patches from Git that will work anywhere, and use them 100% identically within Git as manually applying them. The same cannot be said for Darcs.
Of course Git uses history. It doesn't _have_ to, but it does. As a matter of fact, as soon as you use diff3, you are using history (that's where the GCA comes from).
Know which situations it does use it, similar to this setup? Apparently not for moves, any other potential gotchas? I prefer patch-like behavior, because it can be predicted by looking at the patch.
Git doesn't use history to determine merge behavior (edit: in this circumstance). Git behaves like applying patches. Darcs uses the history to make "intelligent" patches.
It's a matter of taste. If you look at Git as having a history, therefore should use the history, yes, it's incorrect. But if you look at it as a patch manager, it's behaving as it should, and Darcs is frighteningly unpredictable - the numbers on the patch might not match the numbers of the lines it modifies.
I side with Git on this. I can generate patches from Git that will work anywhere, and use them 100% identically within Git as manually applying them. The same cannot be said for Darcs.