Re: PostgreSQL Developer meeting minutes up

From: "Markus Wanner" <markus(at)bluegap(dot)ch>
To: "Nicolas Barbier" <nicolas(dot)barbier(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: PostgreSQL Developer meeting minutes up
Date: 2009-06-08 09:10:44
Message-ID: 20090608111044.15115aavarkkl95g@mail.bluegap.ch
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Hi,

Quoting "Nicolas Barbier" <nicolas(dot)barbier(at)gmail(dot)com>:
> If I understand correctly, "nearby variable renaming" refers to
> changes to the few lines surrounding the changes-to-be-merged.

Hm.. I took that to mean "changes on the same line". I now realize
this interpretation has been an overly strict interpretation.

> There
> is certainly supposed to be an advantage relative to diff/patch here:
> as all changes leading to both versions are known (up to some common
> ancestor), git doesn't need "context lines" to recognize the position
> in the file that is supposed to receive the updates.

Yes, that's how I understand it as well. Your example seems fine
(except that it does not make much sense to merge with an ancestor).

I'm not sure if git also works line by line (as does monotone).
However, IIRC kdiff3 uses some finer grained comparison, so it can
even merge unrelated change on the same line, i.e.:

ancestor: aaa bbb
left: axa bbb (modified a -> x)
right: aaa byb (modified b -> y)
merge: axa byb (contains both modifications)

Regards

Markus Wanner

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Fujii Masao 2009-06-08 09:27:07 Re: postmaster recovery and automatic restart suppression
Previous Message Ron Mayer 2009-06-08 08:56:51 Re: PostgreSQL Developer meeting minutes up