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
patch?
Take care,
Jeremy
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