Re: CVS update: subversion/subversion/libsvn_wc status.c Makefile.am wc.h

Jim Blandy wrote:

>> I thought it should be possible for status to report that a file
>> is currently in conflict? After an update, of course. Oh, that would
>> be nice! Let's not have any ">>>>>>"'s in working copy files, let's
>> not have to update to see conflicts ...
>
>
> I'm 100% with you that CVS's conflict handling is not especially
> graceful. Not to contradict Ben's "that's after 1.0" point, can you
> suggest an alternate interface? How should it work?
>
> Keep in mind that, after a conflict has been detected, we need some
> system that forces the user to actually do the manual merge before
> committing. Otherwise, people (being people) will tend to go ahead
> and commit, and the conflicting change will just evaporate. The
> current system of marking up the file with <<<<<<, etc. is pretty
> effective, in that sense.

http://subversion.tigris.org/subversion-dev/current/msg00265.html

I think this would be quite enough, wouldn't it?
Along with the client forbidding commit with unresolved
conflicts, and maybe a --force flag, for which the user
would need apropriate privileges.

-- 
Brane �ibej
    home:   <brane_at_xbc.nu>           http://www.xbc.nu/brane/
     ACM:   <brane_at_acm.org>          http://www.acm.org/