Merge conflicts often occur when developers concurrently change the same code artifacts. While state of practice unstructured merge tools (e.g Git merge) try to automatically resolve merge conflicts based on textual similarity, semistructured and structured merge tools try to go further by exploiting the syntactic structure and semantics of the artifacts involved. Although there is evidence that semistructured merge has significant advantages over unstructured merge, and that structured merge reports significantly fewer conflicts than unstructured merge, it is unknown how semistructured merge compares with structured merge. To help developers decide which kind of tool to use, we compare semistructured and structured merge in an empirical study by reproducing more than 40,000 merge scenarios from more than 500 projects. In particular, we assess how often the two merge strategies report different results, we identify conflicts incorrectly reported by one but not by the other (false positives), and conflicts correctly reported by one but missed by the other (false negatives). Our results show that semistructured and structured merge differ in 24% of the scenarios with conflicts. Semistructured merge reports more false positives, whereas structured merge has more false negatives. Finally, we found that adapting a semistructured merge tool to resolve a particular kind of conflict makes semistructured and structured merge even closer.

@inproceedings{paperbot5271,
  title = {The Impact of Structure on Software Merging: Semistructured Versus Structured Merge},
  author = {Guilherme Cavalcanti and Paulo Borba and Georg Seibt and Sven Apel},
  booktitle = {ASE},
  year = {2019},
  doi = {10.1109/ase.2019.00097}
}