On Tue, Jul 11, 2006 at 06:40:54PM -0700, Zack Weinberg wrote: > I rewrote CMD(merge) again according to your suggestions; please have a > look?
I made a few small tweaks (message tweaks, adding a safe_insert, tweaking the test to document the real old algorithm). Looks good! Merged to mainline. > I was thinking about using commit date as a further heuristic, i.e. > when we have two LCAs neither of which is an ancestor of the other, > merge the newest one first; furthermore, when we have three or more > heads with the same LCA, merge the newest two first. I don't have any really clear picture of whether this heuristic would help or hurt. My general bias is towards simple and predictable systems that involve minimal cognitive clutter (you can just _hear_ my math background seeping through), so this doesn't excite me too much but, you know, hey, if you can make it work :-). I think I've said before that my guess is that the basic topological heuristic is the 90% benefit/10% work point, though. > However, it > seems like a huge pain to get from a revision_id to its commit date, > and in fact I'm not sure the date cert is guaranteed to exist. These are both true. (In addition to the mechanisms mentioned elsewhere on the thread, a simple interrupted netsync can leave one with a revision but not all of its certs.) -- Nathaniel -- "The problem...is that sets have a very limited range of activities -- they can't carry pianos, for example, nor drink beer." _______________________________________________ Monotone-devel mailing list Monotone-devel@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/monotone-devel
