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.
On Sun, Jun 12, 2011 at 9:37 PM, Greg Hudson wrote:
> My executive summary of your post is that you want diff3 to try to merge
> related, but not identical, changes occuring between a pair of sync
> points. I'm wary about this for two reasons.
>
> First, the benefit appears to arise chiefly for w
My executive summary of your post is that you want diff3 to try to merge
related, but not identical, changes occuring between a pair of sync
points. I'm wary about this for two reasons.
First, the benefit appears to arise chiefly for what Bram Cohen calls
"implicit cherrypicking" use cases--that
Ugh - using "---" to separate sections of the post was clearly a
really bad idea; sorry about that. :-(
Here it is again, in a hopefully more readable format:
Hi,
I'm not very happy with the current performance of the diff3
algorithm; I think it returns too many and too big conflicts. I have
som
4 matches
Mail list logo
