Re: [PATCH 3/3] diff: correct warning message when renameLimit exceeded

[Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com>]

On Tue, Jul 13, 2021 at 10:17 PM Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:
>
> Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> writes:
>
> > Am I mixing up negatives/positives (as I'm prone to do), or would it
> > be more correct to say the new algorithm risks suboptimal positives
> > rather than that it risks false negatives?
>
> I'm prone to mixing them up, too, but I think they are the sides of
> the same coin.  Imagine there is a path X on the source side, and
> two paths Y and Z on the destination side.  With exhaustive match,
> Z might be a better match (content-wise) to X than Y is to X.
>
> For the path X on the source that is matched with a suboptimal
> counterpart Y on the destination side, we may call the situation a
> false-positive because with a more exhaustive search we might have
> been able to find Z that is a better match.  For the path Z on the
> destination side that was culled too early with heuristics and
> failed to be matched with the source path X that got matched with a
> suboptimal destination path Y, it is a loss for Z---it wasn't chosen
> when it should have been (i.e. a false negative, as Z saw no
> counterparts).
>
> In any case, during the word search for "inexact", "more precise",
> "more expensive", I do not think negatives and positives will play a
> big role anyway, so...

Indeed, I've gotten us off on a bit of a tangent, but thanks for
taking the time to answer my questions.  :-)