On 02/11/2007, Christopher Oezbek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi Sascha, > the reason for this is probably that you have selected an entry type > that has many more required and optional fields than the one you have > given. The duplicate finding algorithm > (net.sf.jabref.Util.containsDuplicate) is not very smart and if it finds > empty fields in both entries, it will count this towards the two entries > being equal. > > In other words: You will have to select an entry type for which you can > fill in many fields OR improve the duplicate detection algorithm for us ;-)
Agreed - the duplicate detection algorithm should be improved. It shouldn't be too hard to avoid unfortunate results like in Sascha's case. I always intended to improve it at some point, but have never gotten around to it. I'll enter it into my TODO list, but if anyone else is interested in working on it, you are most welcome :) -- Morten ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Still grepping through log files to find problems? Stop. Now Search log events and configuration files using AJAX and a browser. Download your FREE copy of Splunk now >> http://get.splunk.com/ _______________________________________________ Jabref-devel mailing list Jabref-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jabref-devel
