On Mon, 2011-06-13 at 07:00 -0400, Morten Kloster wrote: > I assume he has discussed this elsewhere in more detail? The link > you provided says very little about it (and the ONLY hit for "implicit > cherrypicking" on Google was your post :-).
Yes, but I'm not sure where any more, unfortunately. Possibly here: http://lists.zooko.com/pipermail/revctrl/ but that's a big archive to look through. Complicating matters, Codeville merge operates on the entire history of the two nodes, rather than just a common base. > As mentioned above, my original proposal was somewhat more > aggressive than strictly necessary for my purposes. I think if you limit the merging to strictly larger changes between sync points, the false negative rate shouldn't go up too much. > Also, I think > the user should be allowed to specify how aggressive the merge > algorithm should be as an option. Perhaps, but most users aren't going to want to fiddle with merge options, so the onus is still on the system to pick a good default. (It does help if the options immediately make sense, which they do in this proposal. Options like git's "--patience" and "--strategy octopus" are especially unlikely to be used productively, I would think.)
