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

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

From: Michael Andersen Nex° <nexo_at_post.cybercity.dk>
Date: 2003-06-10 23:19:42 CEST

Julian Foad writes:
> $ 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.

Very good points, Julian. I actually remember being a little confused about
the fact that 'svn resolve' didn't actually resolve anything when I first
read
the Subversion Guide.

So, I'd like to change my wish-list to:

1) svn resolved foo.c
2) svn settled foo.c
3) svn resolve foo.c
4) svn settle foo.c

(My previous e-mail was not to say that I think I'm all for renaming
'resolve'
command, only that I find 'settle' to be a *much* better alternative than
'unconflict' et al.)

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Tue Jun 10 23:23:35 2003

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.