From: | Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu> |
---|---|
To: | Kevin Grittner <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> |
Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Gurjeet Singh <singh(dot)gurjeet(at)gmail(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: git diff --patience |
Date: | 2010-10-01 21:53:11 |
Message-ID: | AANLkTinf-GxA+47erwr1Jzd+1csOQ6Vz5300tCdwJDkb@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Oct 1, 2010 at 7:15 AM, Kevin Grittner
<Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> wrote:
> An interesting exercise it so think about what
> real-life lines you could have which would have multiple occurrences
> in this pattern, and think about whether you would then prefer the
> --patience output, especially if this were part of a larger file.
The linux-kernel mailing list had examples of this occurring in real
life too. In real C programs function signatures usually end up being
the unique lines which is what you want but it can happen that
surprising lines are unique. Even braces can be unique if a given
indentation level is only used once.
The discussion basically convinced me that using uniqueness alone is a
bad idea but that the basic idea of trying to identify the important
lines is a fine idea. It's just that uniqueness turns out to be a
relatively weak signal for interesting lines. Linus suggested
line-length but it's pretty debatable which is better.
--
greg
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Jaime Casanova | 2010-10-01 22:52:50 | Re: recovery.conf location |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2010-10-01 21:20:22 | Re: recovery.conf location |