On Fri, 08 Jun 2007, John Peacock wrote:
> Ben Collins-Sussman wrote:
> >One of the next things on my plate is to give users the option to
> >resolve conflicts interactively. That is, rather than
> >update/switch/merge just marking files as 'conflicted' and then
> >letting the user deal with the conflicts later on, the whole process
> >can optionally pause on a conflict and have the user interactively
> >resolve the problem on the spot.
> Have you tried SVK's conflict handling, to see how they are handling it?
> Any time a merge causes a conflict, the commandline client gives you a
> prompt that consists of the possible choices:
> Conflict found in config/dnsbl_zones:
> e)dit, d)iff, m)erge, s)kip, t)heirs, y)ours, h)elp? [e]
> where the "m)erge" choice will call available external merge resolution
> tools (e.g. MELD, kdiff3, or even vim). This behavior is on by default
> for the commandline, unlike what you are proposing; the prompt could
> certainly be suppressed with a --non-interactive option.
This is a lot like what I have been envisioning.
svk can probably invoke conflict resolution on an as-needed basis
without network I/O, because the repository is local.
Received on Fri Jun 8 22:06:06 2007
- application/pgp-signature attachment: stored