Martin Ågren <martin.agren@xxxxxxxxx> 于2023年3月8日周三 15:47写道：
>
> On Wed, 8 Mar 2023 at 07:50, ZheNing Hu <adlternative@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > My question is:
> > 1. In step 3, why is the matrix size (a.nr + b.br) * (a.nr + b.br)
> > instead of a.nr * b.nr?
>
> There's some explanation of that in the man page for `git range-diff`,
> under "ALGORITHM". Look for "To explain also new commits, we introduce
> dummy nodes on both sides:".
>
Thanks, I can understand why the length of the matrix is "a.nr + b.nr" now.
Patches in one collection may have no matching patches in the other
collection, this mismatch situation ("o--C" in the documentation) should
also count the cost.
> > 2. Why the cost(x,y) which satisfies "x ∈ [a.nr, a.nr + b.nr) y ∈ [0,
> > b.nr) || x ∈ [0, a.nr) y ∈ [b.nr, b. The cost of nr + a.nr)" is set to
> > "diffsize(a or b) * creation_factor / 100 : COST_MAX"? What is the
> > role of creation_factor? [1]
>
> The `--creation-factor` command line option is also described in the
> manpage. There was a thread on the mailing list with various
> discussions around this creation factor a while back. Maybe there's
> something interesting there [1].
>
I understand it now. Because mismatch "o--C" "1--0" cost are generally
greater than the cost of two completely different patches "1--C" "0--0".
Use the creation-factor to reduce the cost of "0-C" "1--0" make
"o--C", "1--0" as matching result.
> > 3. How does LAPJV work here? [2]
> >
> > [1]: https://github.com/git/git/blob/725f57037d81e24eacfda6e59a19c60c0b4c8062/range-diff.c#L310
> > [2]: https://github.com/git/git/blob/725f57037d81e24eacfda6e59a19c60c0b4c8062/linear-assignment.c#L15
>
> This appears to be based on work by Jonker and Volgenant. Maybe
> searching for those names online could find something. Maybe not
> git-specific, but even if it's just the general algorithm as such, it
> might be possible to find different explanations of the algorithm.
>
> I haven't really studied this algorithm, but since it's faster than the
> Hungarian algorithm, I could imagine that either
>
> * it's super-useful to first understand the Hungarian algorithm, then
> understand why and how the Jonker-Volgenant algorithm does better,
> or,
>
> * it's completely useless to first understand the Hungarian algorithm,
> since they're so different.
>
> :-)
>
Ah, I had a look at the Hungarian algorithm earlier, because it is the most
typical algorithm in linear assignment problem, it can still be understood.
I didn't read that paper by Jonker and Volgenant, but I should try to read
it later.
> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/git/1196830250.20220726145447@xxxxxxxxx/
>
> Martin
Thanks for the answer!
--
ZheNing Hu
