Re: PostgreSQL Developer meeting minutes up

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