Markus Wanner wrote:
Quoting "Mark Mielke" <m...@mark.mielke.cc>:
I am a theory person - I run things in my head. To me, the concept of
having more context to make the right decision, and an algorithm that
takes advantage of this context to make the right decision, is simple
and compelling on its own. Knowing the algorithms that are in use,
including how it selects the most recent common ancestor gives me
confidence.
Than makes me wondering why you are speaking against merges, where
there are common ancestors. I'd argue that in theory (and generally) a
merge yields better results than cherry-picking (where there is no
common ancestor, thus less information). Especially for back-branches,
where there obviously is a common ancestor.
Nope - definitely not speaking against merges. Automatic merges = best.
Automatic cherry picking = second best if the work flow doesn't allow
for merges. Doing things by hand = bad but sometimes necessary.
Automatic merges or automatic cherry picking with some manual tweaking
(hopefully possible from kdiff3) = necessary at times but still better
than doing things by hand completely. I think you and I are in
agreement. (Even Tom and I are in agreement on many things - I just
didn't respond to his well thought out great posts, like the one that
describes why back patching is often better than forward patching when
having multiple parallel releases open at the same time)
No amount of discussions where others say "it works great" and you
say "I don't believe you until you provide me with output" is going
to get anywhere.
Well, I guess it can be frustrating for both sides. However, I think
these discussions are worthwhile (and necessary) none the less.
As not even those who highly appreciate merge algorithms (you and me,
for example) are in agreement on how to use them (cherry-picking vs.
merging) it doesn't surprise me that others are generally skeptic.
We're in agreement on the merge algorithms I think. :-)
That said, it is a large domain, and there is room for disagreement even
between those with experience, and you are right that it shouldn't be
surprising that others are generally sceptic.
Cheers,
mark
--
Mark Mielke <m...@mielke.cc>
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
