Malcolm Rowe writes:
> > > I'm leaning towards "this is weird, but probably correct behaviour". I
> > > can't think of anything more reasonable that we should do, anyway :-)
> > >
> > I'd say that the current behaviour is more correct.
>
> The current behaviour of throwing up an error is more correct?
>
No, the new behaviour you describe is more correct IMO.
> > Maybe a more convenient behaviour for the user would be for all three conflict
> > files to be symlinks. letting the user just resolve the conflict by copying
> > one of them over the working file. But I don't know how hard that'd be.
> >
> > Running the merge algorithm on those one-liner files with svn:special doesn't
> > seem right either. What about just declaring a conflict if the contents
> > differ and do the required detranslations. The working file could
> > perhaps contain a more instructive message then.
> >
>
> I think you're missing something: the 'left' and 'right' files in the
> merge are regular files with no svn:special set. We're merging a change
> to a regular file into a special file, that's why I'm having trouble
> working out what the right behaviour should be!
>
Woops! Yes I was missing something. I thought we were talking about
merging changes to special files into a special file, sorry.
I agree that .left and .right should be regular then.
thanks,
//Peter
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Fri Feb 16 11:46:42 2007