From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS53758 23.128.96.0/24 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.9 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 65EEF1F934 for ; Tue, 6 Apr 2021 00:10:30 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S242935AbhDFAK3 (ORCPT ); Mon, 5 Apr 2021 20:10:29 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp20.pobox.com ([173.228.157.52]:55016 "EHLO pb-smtp20.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S242936AbhDFAK2 (ORCPT ); Mon, 5 Apr 2021 20:10:28 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp20.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp20.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A28F2115BDA; Mon, 5 Apr 2021 20:10:21 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; s=sasl; bh=oQ+N1Amm5yDYCBTUgZixI1/8WeY=; b=LAW5Fg EsZ46/T4v6bjjZWYBMleVPIBudn6kMDz0Wx9i4+CpOqUmz1YOCEwiRpRJPSMl6uO OpuCmSHg+4yC7Sx1KeL5uEnziviABH3ODvjHeK6cpLQ0XUKWm9/so56auWVICHGK Gg2wDHqL2e4XmbwF6C1IC7dAK7ZM/J5Vs8r5Y= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; q=dns; s=sasl; b=fSvl5lwdh9svKH3gOmUBSItkt2blhQz4 ffl/6j2CEzR5OgRCG/es1FNCB2brtO3VWmC5q7MXcm3BCS60BZ6W5qM3HCiqhTae fIqNxXrx0UD7Rn6u/VAISriX2IbdQGi167kcBfrUIlpPgFVMwJsxM4Tmnszl9OSn 7n1PkzIqU5Q= Received: from pb-smtp20.sea.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp20.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9A7D5115BD9; Mon, 5 Apr 2021 20:10:21 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [34.74.119.39]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp20.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D90A2115BD8; Mon, 5 Apr 2021 20:10:18 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) From: Junio C Hamano To: Jerry Zhang Cc: Elijah Newren , Git Mailing List , Ross Yeager , Abraham Bachrach , Jerry Zhang , Brian Kubisiak Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] git-apply: Allow simultaneous --cached and --3way options References: <20210403013410.32064-1-jerry@skydio.com> <20210403013410.32064-2-jerry@skydio.com> Date: Mon, 05 Apr 2021 17:10:17 -0700 In-Reply-To: (Jerry Zhang's message of "Mon, 5 Apr 2021 16:29:15 -0700") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.2 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 789C03CA-966C-11EB-8EE1-E43E2BB96649-77302942!pb-smtp20.pobox.com Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Jerry Zhang writes: > Unrelatedly would you have context on why --3way falls back on 3way > rather than trying 3way first then falling back on apply_fragments if > blobs don't exist? Historical accident, following the order in which these features were invented, plus applying a single patch straight has been faster than doing a 3-way. I tend to agree with what you are hinting at, though, as I do not offhand think of a situation in which a successful 3way merge would be less correct than a straight patch application, and if the user explicitly has told us to do "--3way", that is a sign that it is acceptable to try 3way first even if it costs more cycles. Those who has been giving "--3way" from inertia would notice if the performance difference is large enough and may complain, though.