Michael Klemm <michael.klemm@informatik.uni-erlangen.de> writes:
> I've got a little proposal to extend the features of "svn resolved".
> When merging with some branches we get conflicts of files that were
> never touched inside the destination for the merge.
>
> Thus, the current way to resolve such conflicts is to simply cp the file
> from the source branch "FooBar.cc.merge-right.rXXXXX" to the local file
> "FooBar.cc". Doing this for more than 10 files is both error prone and
> annoying.
I know that a lot of people have written simple wrapper scripts to
help with large-scale merges like this.
> Maybe svn resolved could do the job if the user was able to specify how
> the conflict should be resvoled. I'd like to have additional options to
> "svn resolved":
>
> "svn resolved --mine FooBar.cc.mine" resolves the conflict in flavor of
> the file FooBar.cc.mine (per cp'ing) and automatically sets the resolved
> status of the file. The same applies to --right and --left to flavor the
> version that comes from the source branch or the destination branch of
> the merge.
I talked it over with Mike Pilato and Ben Collins-Sussman here, and we
were skeptical that this is a good idea. Not definitively against,
just worried that a) it makes it too easy to shoot oneself in the
foot, and b) it's a lot of new options to make the user wade through.
Mike suggested a way around (b), by having
$ svn resolved --side [mine|left|right|query|whatever]
...but even with that change, I'm not sure he would support the idea.
I suggest taking it to the dev@ list, if you're feeling persistent,
though. We're just three people, others may feel differently than we
do.
Best,
-Karl
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Wed Dec 15 18:29:38 2004