On Thu, 2006-01-05 at 08:01 -0600, firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
> Daniel Serodio <email@example.com> writes:
> > Ryan Schmidt wrote:
> > > On Jan 5, 2006, at 11:43, Troels Arvin wrote:
> > >> When a conflict is detected during updates, Subversion creates a
> > >> number of
> > >> files, e.g.
> > >> foo.doc.mine
> > >> foo.doc.r63
> > >> foo.doc.r64
> > >>
> > >> Is it possible to tell the Subversion client to use other namings for
> > >> the .mine and before/after-revision files, e.g.:
> > >>
> > >> foo.mine.doc
> > >> foo.r63.doc
> > >> foo.r64.doc
> > >
> > > That sounds like a great idea to me, but I don't think Subversion
> > > currently gives you any control of that, nor does searching the issue
> > > tracker for "conflict" show me any relevant bug reports / feature
> > > requests.
> > Sounds like a great idea to me too, can you file a RFE about it?
> I too thought we had an issue for this, but I can't find any. Yes,
> please file an enhancement-request issue (pointing to this thread).
> Frankly, I don't think we even need a config control for this -- it
> ought to be the default behavior.
> Although of course, any examples in the book(s) and FAQ will need to
> be updated if we change this behavior. Mmm, and worse, some programs
> might be depending on it. In other words, the current practice of
> putting the Subversion-specific extension on the end might be
> considered an API of sorts.
Bah. We've always had entries-file data and 'svn info' output to
accurately reveal the correct names of conflict files, if any. If folks
are careless enough to write scripts that completely ignore easily
query-able sources of canonical information like that in favor of whack
guesses based on file naming schemes, I've no sympathy for them.
C. Michael Pilato <firstname.lastname@example.org>
CollabNet <> www.collab.net <> Distributed Development On Demand
Received on Thu Jan 5 17:32:39 2006