Hi,
Quoting "Mark Mielke" <mark@mark.mielke.cc>:
> I am a theory person - I run things in my head. To me, the concept
> of having more context to make the right decision, and an algorithm
> that takes advantage of this context to make the right decision, is
> simple and compelling on its own. Knowing the algorithms that are in
> use, including how it selects the most recent common ancestor gives
> me confidence.
Than makes me wondering why you are speaking against merges, where
there are common ancestors. I'd argue that in theory (and generally) a
merge yields better results than cherry-picking (where there is no
common ancestor, thus less information). Especially for back-branches,
where there obviously is a common ancestor.
> No amount of discussions where others say "it works great" and you
> say "I don't believe you until you provide me with output" is going
> to get anywhere.
Well, I guess it can be frustrating for both sides. However, I think
these discussions are worthwhile (and necessary) none the less.
As not even those who highly appreciate merge algorithms (you and me,
for example) are in agreement on how to use them (cherry-picking vs.
merging) it doesn't surprise me that others are generally skeptic.
Regards
Markus Wanner