Mark Phippard <mailto:MarkP@softlanding.com> wrote on 14 October 2004 16:35:
> cmpilato@localhost.localdomain wrote on 10/14/2004 11:27:12 AM:
>
>> That's a good idea, but then we'd have to maintain support for the new
>> --preserve-extensions flag after 2.0 (as a no-op). I don't believe we
>> are obligated to maintain the existing naming structure of this files.
>> Humans and scripts aren't supposed to be looking for conflict files
>> based on their knowledge of our naming scheme -- they should be
>> parsing the output of 'svn info' to see the names of any conflict
>> files.
>
> How would we handle naming clashes if we used file
> extensions? In other
> words, what if I actually had a file named index.mine.html?
> I assumed
> that this was one of the reasons Subversion didn't use extensions in the
> first place.
Presumably a file originally named index.mine.html, when clashing, would get
called index.mine.mine.html & index.mine.r1234.html (rather than
index.mine.html.r1234 as is the alternative suggested earlier)
> Would there be any value, especially in the hijack scenario, of using less
> techy names, such as:
>
> filename.mine.ext
> filename.base.ext
> filename.new/theirs/modified/conflict.ext
Or perhaps
filename.mine.ext
filename.base.ext
filename.<UID of user who last committed>.ext
Ben
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Thu Oct 14 18:09:22 2004