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.
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.
home: <brane_at_xbc.nu> http://www.xbc.nu/brane/
ACM: <brane_at_acm.org> http://www.acm.org/
Received on Sat Oct 21 14:36:12 2006