RE: isn't variance adjusted patching horribly dangerous?

Philip Martin wrote:

> Tom's example was contrived to give a conflict, I can contrive one
> that does not

This topic seems to be somewhat two-folded. On the one side you want
to reduce the number of unnecessary conflicts. On the other side
you want to make sure you dont miss any real conflict.

How about a middle-way:

To reduce unnecessary conflicts apply the v.a.p. as described in Karl's
paper. To get the warnings, dump the potentially dangerous hunks along
with their patch-results into some "patch.warnings" file and give a
warning.

This way it would be very easy to check whether the v.a.p. did what you
want.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Thu Apr 10 12:21:42 2003