Hi All,
I've finished the first iteration of this functionality but I can take
this information and redo what I originally did to take advantage of the new
stuff created by Ben. I like the idea of having a more uniform approach to
conflict resolution. It makes sense to me.
Take care,
Jeremy
On 6/28/07 6:56 AM, "C. Michael Pilato" <cmpilato@collab.net> wrote:
> C. Michael Pilato wrote:
>> Ben Collins-Sussman wrote:
>>> I've just committed (in r25557) a first draft of the API I'd like to
>>> use for interactive conflict callbacks. Please take a look at the new
>>> 'conflicts' section of svn_client.h
>>
>> I like the concept, but in addition to putting a "path" into the
>> svn_client_conflict_description_t, I'd recommend putting an "adm_access"
>> baton. Otherwise, won't callback implementers will be lacking a vital tool
>> for working copy manipulation?
>
> Ooh. Another thought. If Jeremy is still working on the
> automatically-resolve-conflicts-this-way-or-that code, would it make the
> most sense to do so as an implementation of this conflict resolution API?
Jeremy Whitlock | Community Manager | CollabNet, Inc.
8000 Marina Blvd. Suite 600 | Brisbane, CA 94005 | USA
O 650.228.2516 | C 970.988.8822 | jwhitlock@collab.net
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Thu Jun 28 23:52:11 2007