Re: [PATCH] Add option to resolve conflicts by selecting a specific file (Issue 2784)

Jeremy, i'll get to your other message today, i promise :)

"Jeremy Whitlock" <jcscoobyrs@gmail.com> writes:

> Hi All,
> Makes sense to me. Remember, this has been discussed and until
> now, no one had actually made a concrete request to change the
> verbiage. The verbiage will be changes in all necessary locations.

Well, hold on now!

> On 6/8/07, Karl Fogel <kfogel@red-bean.com> wrote:
> > Eric Gillespie <epg@pretzelnet.org> writes:
> > > Unfortunately, i don't think we've finished painting this
> > > particular bikeshed yet ;->. I finally went and got myself a
> > > conflict so i could see if we could take name inspiration from
> > > there. So, how about svn_accept_{old,new,work} with strings
> > > "left", "new", and "working"?
> >
> > I can't believe I'm writing this, http://green.bikeshed.com/, etc, but:
> > let's avoid needless grammar variations. svn_accept_{old,new,working}
> > would perfectly match the adjectives we actually use.

It's not just a bikeshed; this is a UI consitency question. The
files are called "left", "right", and "working". It seems
logical to me to use those names, not expect the user to run a
map in his head.

As for the svn_accept_t values, yeah, bikeshed, who cares. I
thought we should try to match the conflict fields in
svn_wc_entry_t, but maybe it's better to match the strings.

-- 
Eric Gillespie <*> epg@pretzelnet.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org