Mark Mielke <mark@mark.mielke.cc> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> I have heard it claimed that git is more intelligent than plain
>> diff/patch and could successfully merge patches in cases that currently
>> require manual adjustment of the sort Andrew describes.
>> ...
>> However, I have yet to see any actual *evidence* in support of this
>> claim.
> Any revision control system should be able to do better than diff/patch
> as these systems have more information available to them. Normal GIT
> uses the relatively common 3-way merge based upon the most recent common
> ancestor algorithm. Assuming there is a most recent common ancestor that
> isn't "file creation", it will have a better chance of doing the right
> thing.
And I still haven't seen any actual evidence. Could we have fewer
undocumented assertions and more experimental evidence? Take Andrew's
plperl patches and see if git does any better with them than plain patch
does. (If it's not successful with that patch, it's pointless to try it
on any bigger cases, I fear.)
regards, tom lane
