Tom Lane wrote:
>> Any revision control system should be able to do better than diff/patch
>> as these systems have more information available to them. Normal GIT
>> uses the relatively common 3-way merge based upon the most recent common
>> ancestor algorithm. Assuming there is a most recent common ancestor that
>> isn't "file creation", it will have a better chance of doing the right
>> thing.
>>
>
> And I still haven't seen any actual evidence. Could we have fewer
> undocumented assertions and more experimental evidence? Take Andrew's
> plperl patches and see if git does any better with them than plain patch
> does. (If it's not successful with that patch, it's pointless to try it
> on any bigger cases, I fear.)
>
>
>
The plperl stuff is actually a tough case. In 7.4 we didn't have
provision for two interpreters, so PERL_SYS_INIT3 is called
unconditionally, and we didn't have a Windows port either, so the
comment is also different.
I guess that in itself illustrates the problems.
I also entirely agree with your point about us being more kludgey and
less invasive on back branches.
cheers
andrew