Tom Lane wrote:
Any revision control system should be able to do better than diff/patch
as these systems have more information available to them. Normal GIT
uses the relatively common 3-way merge based upon the most recent common
ancestor algorithm. Assuming there is a most recent common ancestor that
isn't "file creation", it will have a better chance of doing the right
thing.
And I still haven't seen any actual evidence. Could we have fewer
undocumented assertions and more experimental evidence? Take Andrew's
plperl patches and see if git does any better with them than plain patch
does. (If it's not successful with that patch, it's pointless to try it
on any bigger cases, I fear.)
The plperl stuff is actually a tough case. In 7.4 we didn't have
provision for two interpreters, so PERL_SYS_INIT3 is called
unconditionally, and we didn't have a Windows port either, so the
comment is also different.
I guess that in itself illustrates the problems.
I also entirely agree with your point about us being more kludgey and
less invasive on back branches.
cheers
andrew
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
