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

On Wed, Jun 11, 2003 at 06:38:30AM -0500, Ben Collins-Sussman wrote:
> Greg Hudson <ghudson@MIT.EDU> writes:
>
> > (I'm personally okay with doing nothing or with changing the name of
> > "svn resolve" to pretty much any of the given options; I suspect even
> > "svn resolved" would help eliminate mistyping just because the two
> > commands would no longer both be verbs.
>
> FWIW, I think we should s/resolve/resolved no matter what solution
> we decide to go with. It's a change that introduces clarity to svn,
> independent of the original problem we're trying to solve.

(bikeshed color opinion from the peanut gallery)

As a new user of Subversion I think I agree. It took me a little while
to realize that, unlike a lot of other commands, "svn resolve" doesn't
*do* the action implied by the verb. No, *you* do that, then you tell
Subversion that *you've* resolved the conflict.

Someday when we have an interactive three-way patch utility, maybe we
can use "svn resolve" to call it. ;-)

-- 
G. Branden Robinson            |      It was a typical net.exercise -- a
Free Software Developer        |      screaming mob pounding on a greasy
branden@deadbeast.net          |      spot on the pavement, where used to
http://deadbeast.net/~branden/ |      lie the carcass of a dead horse.