Re: [PATCH 0/2] RFC: implement new zdiff3 conflict style

[Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com>]

On Tue, Jun 15, 2021 at 2:36 PM Johannes Sixt <j6t@kdbg.org> wrote:
>
> Am 15.06.21 um 07:16 schrieb Elijah Newren via GitGitGadget:
> > Implement a zealous diff3, or "zdiff3". This new mode is identical to
> > ordinary diff3 except that it allows compaction of common lines between the
> > two sides of history, if those common lines occur at the beginning or end of
> > a conflict hunk.
>
> As a data point, I tried this series (cf9d93e547 en/zdiff3) on my
> criss-cross merge test case that started this adventure, and it produces
> the very same output as diff3; cf.
> https://lore.kernel.org/git/60883e1b-787f-5ec2-a9af-f2f6757d3c43@kdbg.org/

That's good to hear; your two sides had no common text at the
beginning or end of the conflict hunk, so I wouldn't expect zdiff3 to
change that particular example.

The XDL_MERGE_FAVOR_BASE idea (cf.
https://lore.kernel.org/git/20210611190235.1970106-1-newren@gmail.com/),
though would I think simplify the diff3 conflict markers in your
example to

<<<<<<< HEAD
    CClustering ComputeSSLClusters(double threshPercent, const
CDataInfo* scale) const override;
    void ComputeDist(DistFunc distFunc, CDoubleArray& dist,
        double& minDist, double& maxDist) const;
    double EstimateNodeDist2() const override;
    std::vector<double> EstimateNeighborMinDist() const override;
||||||| merged common ancestors
    CClustering ComputeClusters(const double* dist, double threshold,
        const CDataInfo* scale) const override;
    virtual void ComputeDist(DistFunc distFunc, CDoubleArray& dist,
        double& minDist, double& maxDist);
    virtual void ComputeUMatrix();
    virtual void ComputeKNearest(int K, const double*,
        Neighborhood& result) const;
=======
    CClustering ComputeSSLClusters(double threshPercent,
        const CDoubleArray& compWeights, const CDataInfo* scale) const override;
    static void ComputeDist(const CNetNodeHolder& vecs, CDoubleArray& dist,
        double& minDist, double& maxDist);
>>>>>>> no-compweights-in-cnet

That seems like it might be nicer, but I don't do many criss-cross
merges myself so it'd be nice to get opinions of others like you who
do.