On Thu, May 29, 2008 at 10:59:20AM -0400, Mark Phippard wrote:
> On Thu, May 29, 2008 at 10:53 AM, Julian Foad
> <julianfoad_at_btopenworld.com> wrote:
> > Stefan Sperling wrote:
> >> On Thu, May 29, 2008 at 02:14:55PM +0100, Julian Foad wrote:
> >>> Sorry if this feels like I'm overriding some of your decisions. Let me
> >>> know if my reasoning makes sense.
> >> It does make sense. However, we already know that people want
> >> tree conflicts to work with TortoiseSVN. Now, the Tortoise developers
> >> could either invent their own human readable descriptions, or use an
> >> API we provide (and which our command line client is using).
> > True. I just think it is highly unlikely that Tortoise or any GUI would want
> > to use the exact same text that "svn" uses. As a user of Tortoise, I would
> > want to see the conflicts in a multi-column list or something like that
> > rather than as long strings of plain text. Even if there was to be a
> > long-text pop-up description when I hover my mouse pointer over a conflict
> > in the list, I still think it is unlikely that I'd want the wording of that
> > description to be the same as what "svn" gives.
> > But only TortoiseSVN or other client authors could definitively answer this.
> Speaking as one of these authors, the best I can say right now is "I
> don't know". Ideally I'd probably want an API that makes available to
> me all of the conflict information I need to make my own UI. The type
> of conflict, and any relevant data I need to give the user to resolve
> it etc.
Right. Let's go Julian's route then, he seems to be on the right track!
Received on 2008-05-30 01:18:42 CEST
- application/pgp-signature attachment: stored