More merge base discussion [was: monotone's LCA+DOM algo for selecting a merge base]

[John A Meinel]

Aaron Bentley wrote:
> John A Meinel wrote:
>>> Sounds reasonable to me. It seems perfectly suited for something like
>>> the 'stat-cache'. Which would just have "revision-id\0distance" one per
>>> line.
>>>
>>> I don't know what the delimiter should be, especially since I don't know
>>> what our future revision-id spec is going to be. '\0' is a safe bet that
>>> we won't ever allow it, but I don't know about any other character.
> 
> I think it might be a good idea to escape the entries, to ensure no
> future-compatability worries.  Then we could use '=' or ':'.
> 
>>> I think what actually happened is that I merged you, and resolved all
>>> the conflicts. And then when I merged you again, it picked Robert as a
>>> base, and I had to resolve *your* conflicts again, not integration
>>> conflicts.
> 
> Hmm, possibly that makes sense.  But it's fairly surprising when it happens.
> 
> I've had some discussion with Monotone's Nathaniel Stone, and he says:
> "anything involving dominators is _definitely_ not _optimal_.  All we
> claim is that we think it is more _safe_"
> 
> He also pointed out that it's pretty easy to detect whether there's a
> criss-cross: If you have more than one minimal common ancestor, you have
> a criss-cross.  If you have an LCA, you have no criss-cross.
> 
> If we can generalize this to detect all criss-crosses, then we can use
> the data to filter the results of our existing algorithm, which I think
> is still pretty good.
> 
> Aaron

Sounds good to me.

John
=:->

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 249 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/bazaar/attachments/20060221/777ed206/attachment.pgp