Re: 'svn revert' vs. 'svn resolve'

Someone wrote:
>
> 'settle' is terse, it is semantically very close to 'resolve' and, finally,
> it isn't easily confused with other svn subcommands.

All true. But only the third point is an argument for it being BETTER than "resolve", and neither word accurately expresses the meaning of the command. The command

$ svn settle foo.c

doesn't make much sense grammatically, because (and the same arguments apply to "resolve")

(a) you can settle a conflict, but you don't "settle" a file.

(b) you are not telling Subversion to settle the conflict, you are informing Subversion that you have settled the conflict.

Actually, perhaps the difficulty comes from the fact that the command currently named "svn resolve" does not have any very clearly defined meaning. Partly it informs Subversion that you have resolved any conflicts (but Subversion currently takes no notice of this information), and partly it tells Subversion to clean up the files that it left for your convenience when it inserted conflict markers. But there is a feeling (to me at least) that this meaning and behaviour is subject to change in the future.

And isn't "resolve" a common term in the world of version control (users, not just implementors)?

Thus:

$ svn conflicts-are-resolved-in foo.c
$ svn mark-resolved foo.c
$ svn have-resolved foo.c
$ svn resolved foo.c
$ svn settled foo.c

- Julian

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Tue Jun 10 20:23:50 2003