Re: [PATCH] xdiff: implement a zealous diff3

[Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com>]

Jeff King wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 14, 2021 at 11:19:46PM -0500, Felipe Contreras wrote:
> 
> > > My point is that if you are going to repost a patch that has known
> > > problems,
> > 
> > It was not known that it had problems.
> > 
> > That fact that person X said patch Y had a problem doesn't necessarily
> > mean that patch Y has a problem.
> > 
> >   1. The problem in the past might not apply in the present
> >   2. The problem X person had might be specific to his/her setup
> >   3. The problem might be due a combination of patches, not the patch
> >      itself
> > 
> > Plus many others.
> > 
> > A logical person sees evidence for what it is, and the only thing that
> > person X saying patch Y had a problem means, is that person X said patch
> > Y had a problem.
> 
> Wow.
> 
> For one thing, you could still relay the _report_ of a problem along
> with the patch, which would be valuable information for reviewers.

Yes I could have, and knowing what I know now I wouldn't even have even
posted the patch (not without a proposed fix). Woulda, coulda, shoulda.

But that's not the point. The point is that I did not repost a patch with
known problems *today*. Nor did I know what kind of problems, or
how pervasive the issue was.

Presumably you had to try at least 2,500 merges to find *one* issue.

I ran all the tests for diff3 with zdiff3 and they passed without
problems.


Merging this patch would have:

 1. Not broken any tests
 2. Not changed any behavior for any user
 3. Not have caused any problem for the vast majority (> 99%) of
    people trying out zdiff3

So there was no carelessness here.

Moreover, I provied the patch at 9:30, at 10:42 you commented about the
segfault, and 16:24 I had the fix. On a Sunday.

If this is not caring, I don't know what is.

-- 
Felipe Contreras