[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: <kfogel_at_collab.net>
Date: 2003-06-10 23:18:49 CEST

Greg Stein <gstein@lyra.org> writes:
> last saved." It works perfect, so I'd agree that the command name shouldn't
> change. Personally, I would suggest leaving the .mine file if you revert a
> conflicted file. It's safe, easy to explain, and it isn't hard to clean
> those up.

This could work, but we need to figure it out in more detail. Calling
it ".mine" overloads that suffix.

When you update and get a conflict, four files result (right?):

   1. your working file 'foo' gets conflict markers
   2. 'foo.r6' (say) is the old base revision of the file
   3. 'foo.r8' (say) is the new base revision of the file
   4. 'foo.mine' is the old working file, w/o conflict markers

If you meant to type "resolve" but typed "revert" instead, then you
intended for all of the above to go away except the working file. So
to be safe, reverting a conflicted file would preserve the working
file -- but under what name? 'foo.mine' already means something

How about "foo.merged"? Any other ideas?

I don't necessarily think renaming "resolve" is better than this other
solution; just would like to have it fully described before we decide.


To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Wed Jun 11 00:05:26 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.