> I don't think that paths add any helpful information. I don't understand
> how local can mean anything other than the working copy that you are
> merging into. How can the repository be any path other than the one that
> contains the path you just entered into the dialog box to start the
It may be obvious if you have read all 49 messages of this discussion,
at this point you will probably not be able to confuse them easily.
Still, the problem is my brain works this way:
I want to merge changes from version X into trunk. So I start the
merge assistant in my trunk folder, then select version X in "URL to
merge from". Then click "next" and "merge". With a bit of luck, it
will just do what I want it to do. If it's not that easy I'll get the
dreaded conflict dialog. Now I might know that I either want to use
the trunk or version X state of the conflicted file. Problem is, that
this conception does not directly map to "Local" and "repository". I
can then guess that "repository" is version X, but I'd like to be
reassured that this is indeed the case. Or I might actually be
confused because of the new terms. They have not been used in the
assistant, it uses "URL to merge from" and "Working copy". In fact you
got all these terms below, the "inconsistency" (they are certainly not
factually incorrect) does not help:
My concept "Merge source, version X", terms used in TSVN: URL to merge
from - Repository - Theirs
My concept "Merge target, trunk", terms used in TSVN: Working copy -
Local - Mine
> How can you possibly merge 2 things together unless you understand what
> they are?
I can't, but I do know what I want to merge.
> However, if you are merging stuff you had better understand what you are doing and it's
> obvious from at least spongman's comments that there are some real
> misunderstandings of the what how subversion works, fundamental
What fundamental misunderstandings would I be a victim of?
> To use subversion effectively you really *must* know what is repository
> is and what a working copy is and how they are different.
I do and still I believe that the dialog does not support me with my
> A list of the relevant log messages might be helpful. It would save the
> step of opening openning a log list. This would have to be weighed
> against the increased net traffic required to fetch the log.
I'd only want to have the list loaded when I click on the link, so it
should not cause more traffic. It's just easier than going to the
To unsubscribe from this discussion, e-mail: [users-unsubscribe_at_tortoisesvn.tigris.org].
Received on 2011-10-18 18:42:44 CEST