From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.4 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,NICE_REPLY_A,SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6EE39C48BE6 for ; Wed, 16 Jun 2021 06:16:44 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 486D06109D for ; Wed, 16 Jun 2021 06:16:44 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S231252AbhFPGSt (ORCPT ); Wed, 16 Jun 2021 02:18:49 -0400 Received: from bsmtp2.bon.at ([213.33.87.16]:3641 "EHLO bsmtp2.bon.at" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S229543AbhFPGSs (ORCPT ); Wed, 16 Jun 2021 02:18:48 -0400 Received: from [192.168.0.98] (unknown [93.83.142.38]) by bsmtp2.bon.at (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4G4ZhT3nWGz5tlJ; Wed, 16 Jun 2021 08:16:41 +0200 (CEST) Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] RFC: implement new zdiff3 conflict style To: Elijah Newren Cc: Elijah Newren via GitGitGadget , Git Mailing List References: <55d0eb59-10a0-1dff-f195-4d660c6028e0@kdbg.org> From: Johannes Sixt Message-ID: Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2021 08:16:41 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.10.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Am 15.06.21 um 23:45 schrieb Elijah Newren: > On Tue, Jun 15, 2021 at 2:36 PM Johannes Sixt wrote: >> >> Am 15.06.21 um 07:16 schrieb Elijah Newren via GitGitGadget: >>> Implement a zealous diff3, or "zdiff3". This new mode is identical to >>> ordinary diff3 except that it allows compaction of common lines between the >>> two sides of history, if those common lines occur at the beginning or end of >>> a conflict hunk. >> >> As a data point, I tried this series (cf9d93e547 en/zdiff3) on my >> criss-cross merge test case that started this adventure, and it produces >> the very same output as diff3; cf. >> https://lore.kernel.org/git/60883e1b-787f-5ec2-a9af-f2f6757d3c43@kdbg.org/ > > That's good to hear; your two sides had no common text at the > beginning or end of the conflict hunk, so I wouldn't expect zdiff3 to > change that particular example. > > The XDL_MERGE_FAVOR_BASE idea (cf. > https://lore.kernel.org/git/20210611190235.1970106-1-newren@gmail.com/), > though would I think simplify the diff3 conflict markers in your > example to > > <<<<<<< HEAD > CClustering ComputeSSLClusters(double threshPercent, const > CDataInfo* scale) const override; > void ComputeDist(DistFunc distFunc, CDoubleArray& dist, > double& minDist, double& maxDist) const; > double EstimateNodeDist2() const override; > std::vector EstimateNeighborMinDist() const override; > ||||||| merged common ancestors > CClustering ComputeClusters(const double* dist, double threshold, > const CDataInfo* scale) const override; > virtual void ComputeDist(DistFunc distFunc, CDoubleArray& dist, > double& minDist, double& maxDist); > virtual void ComputeUMatrix(); > virtual void ComputeKNearest(int K, const double*, > Neighborhood& result) const; > ======= > CClustering ComputeSSLClusters(double threshPercent, > const CDoubleArray& compWeights, const CDataInfo* scale) const override; > static void ComputeDist(const CNetNodeHolder& vecs, CDoubleArray& dist, > double& minDist, double& maxDist); >>>>>>>> no-compweights-in-cnet > > That seems like it might be nicer, but I don't do many criss-cross > merges myself so it'd be nice to get opinions of others like you who > do. That *is* nicer as it is just the regular conflict with some base context. Does that mean that the regular recursive merge is a bit sloppy because it throws away too many conflicts that occur in virtual ancestors? Even if that is the case, I couldn't tell whether that is a disadvantage or not, as I've actually never seen nested conflicts in the past; the diff3 test was the first time I saw one. With the referenced patch applied (after a small tweak around needs_cr to make it compile), my testcase does indeed produce the above conflict under zdiff3 mode. The diff3 mode, OTOH, produces an exceedingly large non-nested and obviously incorrect conflict (I'm not going to post it here): our and their side are large and share a lot of text, but the base part is identical to the above and is far too small. -- Hannes