[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: Branko Čibej <brane_at_xbc.nu>
Date: 2004-10-18 14:13:30 CEST

Justin Erenkrantz wrote:

> --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

+1. Not requiring the user to do something to resolve a (conflict
created by a) hijack would mean that most users would simply ignore
other people's changes in this situation and commit -- which could
easily lead to broken builds, "lost" data, etc.

-- Brane

To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Mon Oct 18 14:14:19 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.