--On Wednesday, October 13, 2004 5:10 PM -0400 Ben Collins-Sussman
<sussman@collab.net> wrote:
> I disagree. The ignorant user has already made their edits by hijacking
> a read-only file: why are those edits shoehorned away into a backup file
> when 'svn up' is run? If we did this, the user would just be copying the
> backup file on top of the repos file anyway. If the user is forced to
> choose between their own changes and someone else's, and merging isn't an
> option, they'll almost always prefer their own.
But, what if svn:must-lock wasn't set? (Either on purpose or by accident.)
There could still have been a conflict in the file. In that case, the
.mine, .rXXXX, .rYYYY paradigm gets enforced anyway. This is what happens
today if you try to collaboratively edit binary file formats (which we do
already and why I look forward to 'svn lock' functionality). I would
rather us be consistent in our approach if svn:must-lock was set as if it
wasn't set by moving towards the .mine approach. -- justin
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Wed Oct 13 23:19:54 2004