On 6/1/07, Eric Gillespie <epg@pretzelnet.org> wrote:
> "Mark Phippard" <markphip@gmail.com> writes:
>
> > We discussed a bit on IRC. I'd say the conclusion was that the
> > current approach is good for resolved command, but for the others, it
> > would need to be a hunk-based approached where this option only
> > applied to the hunks that were in conflict. Here is a transcript:
>
> Unless i'm missing something, i understood correctly. I still
> don't see why it *needs* to be hunk-based, even for
> merge/update/switch. I'm certainly not opposed to that
> improvement! But, are we letting the perfect be the enemy of the
> good? Or maybe handling it by hunk is easier than i think.
Famous last words, but I do not see why if we are in the middle of a
merge process and we detect a conflict and know enough to put markers
in the file, that it would be that much more difficult to have a flag
that says "nope, just use that version" for this hunk.
I guess where I differ from you, is that with the exception of binary
files, I cannot imagine where the current behavior would ever be
desirable. Even worse, is that I think the presence of the option
would create the desire for the hunk-based behavior. What is the use
case where when merging an entire project if it received a conflict,
you'd just want to bail on all the merge that could be done and just
accept one of the revisions in it's entirety?
--
Thanks
Mark Phippard
http://markphip.blogspot.com/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Fri Jun 1 21:40:47 2007