[svn.haxx.se] · SVN Dev · SVN Users · SVN Org · TSVN Dev · TSVN Users · Subclipse Dev · Subclipse Users · this month's index

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

From: Jeremy Whitlock <jcscoobyrs_at_gmail.com>
Date: 2007-06-10 02:42:51 CEST

Hi All,
    I can do whatever *we* decide is right. I think accepting them
all makes sense since the verbiage can be misleading if you do not.
Can someone else agree with this approach so I can resubmit a new

Take care,


On 6/8/07, Eric Gillespie <epg@pretzelnet.org> wrote:
> "Jeremy Whitlock" <jcscoobyrs@gmail.com> writes:
> > Hi All,
> > I think I know why there is a slight verbiage disagreement. When
> > you create a conflict as part of an update/switch, the naming
> > convention is:
> >
> > .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
> Well, crap. I didn't realize we had this inconsistency out
> there. And i bet OLD and NEW are backwards when i'm back-dating
> (e.g. at r37 and svn up -r30). Sigh.
> So, why don't we accept both? --accept=left == --accept=old and
> --accept=right == --accept=new and the svn_accept_t values can
> stay left/right, since that's what we really have in all cases anyway.
> Thanks, Jeremy, for sticking with what originally looked like
> such a simple task ;->.
> --
> Eric Gillespie <*> epg@pretzelnet.org

To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Sun Jun 10 02:43:05 2007

This is an archived mail posted to the Subversion Dev mailing list.

This site is subject to the Apache Privacy Policy and the Apache Public Forum Archive Policy.