[svn.haxx.se] · SVN Dev · SVN Users · SVN Org · TSVN Dev · TSVN Users · Subclipse Dev · Subclipse Users · this month's index

Re: Patch command execution

From: Ben Collins-Sussman <sussman_at_collab.net>
Date: 2002-02-08 07:15:37 CET

Mo DeJong <supermo@bayarea.net> writes:

> On 07 Feb 2002 23:10:00 -0600
> Karl Fogel <kfogel@newton.ch.collab.net> wrote:
> ...
> > IMHO, we don't want to keep the .rej files. Let's use conflict
> > markers instead, and use a timestamp to tell if the conflict should be
> > considered resolved. I.e., if the file has been modified since it
> > received the conflict, we assume the conflict is resolved. We don't
> > check if conflict markers are present or absent -- that's too likely
> > to prevent "valid" commits, and if we have the timestamp solution
> > anyway, that's enough.
> >
> > Comments? Suggestions? Rotten fruit? :-)
> Please don't do that. We don't want to leave conflict markers in files
> because someone always screws up conflict resolution and you
> end up with a bunch of <<<<<< characters in your files.
> I am not joking, this happens all the time. Only those changes
> that apply cleanly should be applied. This is a CVS mistake that
> we should not make.

I have to admit, I'm against inline conflict markers as well (-1 on
the suggestion.) Something feels horribly wrong about conflicts
dumping 'junk' into my working file.

But Karl -- I know you prefer working with the inline markers. Maybe
we could have create some process (another program? a new svn
subcommand?) that takes a .rej file and *applies* it to your working
file as inline markers?

To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Sat Oct 21 14:37:05 2006

This is an archived mail posted to the Subversion Dev mailing list.

This site is subject to the Apache Privacy Policy and the Apache Public Forum Archive Policy.