I think I know why there is a slight verbiage disagreement. When
you create a conflict as part of an update/switch, the naming
.rOLD, .rNEW and .mine
When you create a conflict as part of a merge, the naming convention is:
.merge-left.rOLD, .merge-right.rNEW and .working
Since the accept flag should be capable of automatically resolving any
conflict, what verbiage makes sense? There are two different sets of
verbiage now and we need to decide what to use. I think the reason
we've had some verbiage conflicts to this point is that some people
see this from the merge perspective and some see it from the
On 6/8/07, Jeremy Whitlock <email@example.com> wrote:
> Thanks for the clarification. I'm good now.
> Take care,
> On 6/8/07, Eric Gillespie <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> > "Jeremy Whitlock" <email@example.com> writes:
> > > What is the real purpose of svn_accept_invalid? I can see it being
> > > returned from svn_accept_from_word when an invalid accept word is
> > > passed as an argument but beyond that, how else do you see it being
> > > used?
> > That's it. The point is this: you have an error condition when
> > someone says --accept=goat. That means your from_word function
> > needs to return something other than a valid value.
> > > I also think that the command line parsing should handle this
> > > as an error when you pass an invalid value as the accept flag. This
> > > is how I do it now but you suggest otherwise. Can you explain?
> > No, i don't suggest otherwise :). Hope it's clear now.
> > > The other things you mentioned are valid. Sometimes it is easy to
> > > look over small things like docstrings when trying to get code
> > > working. Please bear with me with this patch as I'm learning the
> > > Subversion coding standards and API as I go along.
> > Hey, no problem!
> > --
> > Eric Gillespie <*> firstname.lastname@example.org
To unsubscribe, e-mail: email@example.com
For additional commands, e-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org
Received on Fri Jun 8 20:09:09 2007