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

Re: Locking consensus(es) so far

From: Justin Erenkrantz <justin_at_erenkrantz.com>
Date: 2004-10-15 06:26:49 CEST

--On Thursday, October 14, 2004 9:37 AM -0400 Ben Collins-Sussman
<sussman@red-bean.com> wrote:

> In the case of hijacked files, VSS doesn't force people to deal with binary
> merges. Neither does Clearcase. Why should SVN be so much more unfriendly?
> I'm not saying we "don't tell the user", I'm saying, "we don't force the
> user through the current binary conflict resolution process." We scold the
> user, explain the backup file, and let them move on. Just like all these
> other locking VC systems do.

The fact that those other SCMs are acting stupid doesn't mean that we should
be too. I'm definitely very strongly in favor of having us treat a 'backup'
file the same as we do with a binary conflicted file: they need to run 'svn
resolved' to acknowledge that they've confirmed the situation to their
satisfaction. Otherwise, the user won't have any idea that their changes were
lost. We *need* to be a big PITA here because being silent about the fact
that we've tossed local (or remote?) changes is *real* bad. -- justin

To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Fri Oct 15 06:28:14 2004

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.