On Thu, Aug 28, 2014 at 02:55:57PM -0700, Dan Ellis wrote:
> >
> >
> > I don't think this is a merge problem as much as a conflict resolution
> > problem. Perhaps efforts would be a better invested in trying to improve
> > the property conflict resolution mechanisms of 'svn resolve' to make
> > your workflow easier?
> >
> > It sounds like if you'd be in less trouble if you could 'revert' individual
> > property changes to the working copy's BASE state independently of the
> > textual
> > changes, perhaps as a batch operation. There's no technical reason why the
> > conflict resolver couldn't be taught to make this easy but it's not
> > implemented
> >
>
>
> I just re-read this Stefan and think I get what you are referring to. Are
> you suggesting an additional parameter(s) to resolve that would allow
> accepting of a specific property or properties as a whole instead of a
> whole file including properties?
Yes.
> Something like "svn resolve foo.c --accept working --properties-only"?
> That could work well.
Yes, and it could also be dealt with at the interactive conflict prompt.
E.g. it could allow the user to say "resolve this property to theirs-full
and apply that resolution to any other conflicted properties with the
same name" which is currently not possible.
The resolver will only deal with conflicted properties.
If you also want to keep non-conflicted properties unchanged by the
merge, then 'svn revert' could likewise be extended with an interface
to achieve that.
Received on 2014-08-29 11:42:21 CEST