Re: [PATCH] xdiff: implement a zealous diff3

From: Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com>
Date: Jun 15, 2021, 04:19 UTC
Message-ID: <60c82a622ae66_e5292087f@natae.notmuch>
In-Reply-To: <YMbexfeUG78yBix4@coredump.intra.peff.net>

Jeff King wrote:

Show 12 quoted lines

> On Sun, Jun 13, 2021 at 01:00:33PM -0500, Felipe Contreras wrote:
> 
> > > > I'm re-sending this patch from 2013 because I do think it provides value
> > > > and we might want to make it the default.
> > > 
> > > I take it you didn't investigate the segfault I mentioned.
> > 
> > I don't know how I was supposed to investigate the few segfaults you
> > mentioned. All you said is that you never tracked the bug.
> 
> 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.

-- 
Felipe Contreras