From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: linux@horizon.com Subject: Re: [PATCH] array index mixup Date: 16 Jul 2006 14:12:28 -0400 Message-ID: <20060716181228.25231.qmail@science.horizon.com> X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Sun Jul 16 20:12:51 2006 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by ciao.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1G2B6j-0005uY-5b for gcvg-git@gmane.org; Sun, 16 Jul 2006 20:12:45 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751119AbWGPSMd (ORCPT ); Sun, 16 Jul 2006 14:12:33 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751138AbWGPSMd (ORCPT ); Sun, 16 Jul 2006 14:12:33 -0400 Received: from science.horizon.com ([192.35.100.1]:60974 "HELO science.horizon.com") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1751119AbWGPSMd (ORCPT ); Sun, 16 Jul 2006 14:12:33 -0400 Received: (qmail 25232 invoked by uid 1000); 16 Jul 2006 14:12:28 -0400 To: git@vger.kernel.org, junkio@cox.net Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: > *1* If somebody wants to do this, one thing to watch out for is > matching up of broken pairs. If a pair originally broken by > diffcore-break (because they were dissimilar enough according to > the option given to -B flag) are merged into one by > diffcore-rename (because they were similar enough according to > the option given to -M flag), we should _not_ say the resulting > pair is renamed. In general, the threashold for breaking should > be lower than diffcore-rename to merge them for a sane use, so > this might be a non-issue in practice, though. Er... no. You want to be fairly aggressive when doing both things. That is, you want to break aggressively so you can look for a better match elsewhere, but once you've found the best match, you don't want to be shy about accepting it. Pulling numbers out of thin air, say break if 1/3 of a file has changed (66% common), and merge if you have 33% common. Or maybe even less. The point of break then merge is to give you a chance to find the 90% common file that has a new name. I always understood that the reason for having two thresholds is exactly so they can have this relationship, not the opposite one as you suggest.