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

Re: Update problem: Tree conflicts vs content conflicts

From: Dominic Anello <danello_at_danky.com>
Date: 2005-09-08 04:50:53 CEST

On 2005-09-08 10:38:28 +1000, Steve Williams wrote:
> Joshua Varner wrote:
> >I agree it's easy for a warning like that to fly past. Why not put it
> >in a state of
> >conflict and if it is a tree conflict use the filenames to indicate
> >the conflict state.
> >
> >For example if I had deleted a file in my wc and updated to get a new
> >version.
> >I would have:
> ><file> - Not there since that is the proposed
> >resolution
> >file.mine-deleted - tag indicates the tree change (empty file)
> >file.r102 - prev rev
> >file.r103 - new rev
> >
> >and so forth.
> >
> >If you wanted it to stay deleted, then you just svn resolve the file.
> >Any thoughts?
> That wouldn't work in GUI clients like TortoiseSVN where you click on
> the file and select "TortoiseSVN > Resolve..." because the versioned
> file would not be there to click on.

I think in this case you'd show the parent directory in a conflicted
state, since that is actually what changed. You'd could click on the
dir and get a list of tree-level conflicts in that directory and resolve
each one individually.

Sorry to butt in, just a suggestion...


  • application/pgp-signature attachment: stored
Received on Thu Sep 8 04:51:36 2005

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.