On Sat, Sep 18, 2010 at 09:21:31AM +0200, Alan Barrett wrote:
> On Sat, 18 Sep 2010, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> > "Fewest path components, shortest basename, total filename length".
> > It's predictable, but it seems a bit arbitrary?
> It does seem a bit arbitrary, but I was able to rationalise it as
> follows: "fewest path components" is good for choosing between
> "subdir/file" and "../../other-branch/dir/subdir/file"; "shortest
> basename" is good for choosing between "file.old" and "file", or
> between "file" and "file.new"; "total filename length" is good for
> choosing between "subdir/file" and "subdir.old/file". You still need a
> tiebreaker of last resort after all that.
If there's a tie, we can use the "new" name.
I suppose what UNIX patch does has been working well for everybody
for a heck of a long time. There's no point in trying to improve on
it unless we encounter real shortcomings in practice.
Received on 2010-09-18 10:58:15 CEST