Hi, Quoting "Mark Mielke" <m...@mark.mielke.cc>:
I am a theory person - I run things in my head. To me, the concept of having more context to make the right decision, and an algorithm that takes advantage of this context to make the right decision, is simple and compelling on its own. Knowing the algorithms that are in use, including how it selects the most recent common ancestor gives me confidence.
Than makes me wondering why you are speaking against merges, where there are common ancestors. I'd argue that in theory (and generally) a merge yields better results than cherry-picking (where there is no common ancestor, thus less information). Especially for back-branches, where there obviously is a common ancestor.
No amount of discussions where others say "it works great" and you say "I don't believe you until you provide me with output" is going to get anywhere.
Well, I guess it can be frustrating for both sides. However, I think these discussions are worthwhile (and necessary) none the less.
As not even those who highly appreciate merge algorithms (you and me, for example) are in agreement on how to use them (cherry-picking vs. merging) it doesn't surprise me that others are generally skeptic.
Regards Markus Wanner -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
