On mar, oct 02, 2007 at 08:13:18 +0000, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> Ancestor: (aa*, aaa, bbb)
> Left child: (aa*, bbb) <-- remove aaa because aa* covers it
> Right child: (aaa, aabcd, bbb, cc*) <-- remove aa* and be explicit
>
> The proper result is probably: (aaa, aabcd, bbb, cc*) but is in fact a
> case of conflict, because the "left" child could have used the fact that
> aa* was present and hide say a aaXXX that the right child did not had,
> and the merge would be wrong.
Okay this example blows, I believe this one is better:
(a*)
/ \
(ab*) (ac*)
\ /
????
gitignore are subsets of the set of words. if S is the ancestor set,
S1 and S2 the left and right sets. let Δ1 and Δ2 be S1 \ S and S2 \ S
respectively. I think there is a conflict if
Δ1 n Δ2 != 0 and (Δ1 is not a subset of Δ2) and (Δ2 is not a subset of Δ1)
If the condition holds, then I believe that the "merged" .gitignore
would be: (S1 u S2) \ (Δ1 u Δ2)
Though, don't take my word for it, I've only sketched this on a small
piece of paper, and have no rigorous proof.
--
·O· Pierre Habouzit
··O madcoder@xxxxxxxxxx
OOO http://www.madism.org
Attachment:
pgpRALBjYIjRY.pgp
Description: PGP signature
