cmpilato@collab.net writes:
> Vladimir Prus <ghost@cs.msu.su> writes:
>
> I, too, have concerns about mucking up a user's working file with
> conflict markers. On the other hand, I absolutely despise our current
> .rej file system. I almost always end up reverting my change and
> re-making it.
>
> > But, maybe, new command is not needed at all: it's is possible, in
> > case of any conflict, to leave working copy file intact and store
> > results of merge with <<<< markers in .rej file. I'd personally
> > prefer such behaviour.
>
> This, to me, seems like a grand idea. So update would do something
> like:
>
> cp working_file working_file.00000.12345.rej
> apply diff3 contextual diffs to the rej-file
> if diffs apply cleanly
> rm working_file; mv rej-file working_file
> else
> list rej-file in the entries file and mark working_file as conflicted
>
> I really, really like this idea.
Doesn't this mean that the working file will not contain those bits of
the patch that apply cleanly? And that the rej-file will contain
changes that don't conflict? That's not what I would expect.
Philip, who *likes* the current behaviour.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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