On 10/29/07, Stefan Küng <tortoisesvn@gmail.com> wrote:
> Ben Collins-Sussman wrote:
> > On 10/29/07, Stefan Küng <tortoisesvn@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> FWIW, I only test with merge too. Because for updates, I just let the
> >> conflict happen.
> >> Imagine someone doing a lengthy update, goes for a coffee until the
> >> update is finished. He returns, and finds that the update was stalled
> >> due to the conflict callback asking for user input.
> >> For the user, it doesn't make much of a difference whether he has to
> >> resolve the conflicts at the end of the update or in between - the
> >> conflicts are the same.
> >> Only for merges it's important to resolve the conflicts right away,
> >> because otherwise further merges could fail.
> >
> > Is this a configurable thing? I'd like to always be prompted during an update.
>
> You mean in TSVN?
> No, at least not right now, and it's not planned (yet). We've discussed
> this a little on the mailing list, but people either didn't wanted to be
> prompted at all during an update or they didn't care.
> You can doubleclick on the red marked entries (the conflicts) in the
> progress dialog after an update to resolve the conflicts. And TMerge
> even has a button to mark the conflict as resolved (as you can do by
> right-clicking on such a red conflicted entry from the context menu).
>
> Why do you want to be prompted for every possible conflict *during* an
> update and not just at the end of the update? If you could explain so I
> can understand your reasons, I might add a configuration for this.
Ah, didn't realize I could still resolve at the end of the update...
if it's the same dialog box, then to me it still feels like 'during'
the update. That's totally fine.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Mon Oct 29 22:10:06 2007