[svn.haxx.se] · SVN Dev · SVN Users · SVN Org · TSVN Dev · TSVN Users · Subclipse Dev · Subclipse Users · this month's index

RE: isn't variance adjusted patching horribly dangerous?

From: Sander Striker <striker_at_apache.org>
Date: 2003-04-10 12:26:13 CEST

> From: Wolf Josef [mailto:josef.wolf@siemens.com]
> Sent: Thursday, April 10, 2003 12:21 PM

> 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.

It will be dead easy to create an option to 'merge' which will make it
less 'aggressive'. I'll come around to that...


To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Thu Apr 10 12:26:58 2003

This is an archived mail posted to the Subversion Dev mailing list.

This site is subject to the Apache Privacy Policy and the Apache Public Forum Archive Policy.