On Mon, 29 Oct 2007, Ben Collins-Sussman wrote:
> On 10/29/07, Stefan Küng <email@example.com> wrote:
> > Ben Collins-Sussman wrote:
> > > On 10/29/07, Stefan Küng <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> > >
> > >> FWIW, I only test with merge too. Because for updates, I just let the
> > >> conflict happen.
> > >> Imagine someone doing a lengthy update, goes for a coffee until the
> > >> update is finished. He returns, and finds that the update was stalled
> > >> due to the conflict callback asking for user input.
> > >> For the user, it doesn't make much of a difference whether he has to
> > >> resolve the conflicts at the end of the update or in between - the
> > >> conflicts are the same.
> > >> Only for merges it's important to resolve the conflicts right away,
> > >> because otherwise further merges could fail.
> > >
> > > Is this a configurable thing? I'd like to always be prompted during an update.
> > You mean in TSVN?
> > No, at least not right now, and it's not planned (yet). We've discussed
> > this a little on the mailing list, but people either didn't wanted to be
> > prompted at all during an update or they didn't care.
> > You can doubleclick on the red marked entries (the conflicts) in the
> > progress dialog after an update to resolve the conflicts. And TMerge
> > even has a button to mark the conflict as resolved (as you can do by
> > right-clicking on such a red conflicted entry from the context menu).
> > Why do you want to be prompted for every possible conflict *during* an
> > update and not just at the end of the update? If you could explain so I
> > can understand your reasons, I might add a configuration for this.
> Ah, didn't realize I could still resolve at the end of the update...
> if it's the same dialog box, then to me it still feels like 'during'
> the update. That's totally fine.
Are the new 'svn resolved --accept=ARG' options support (e.g. 'base', 'mine',
Received on Mon Oct 29 23:31:19 2007
- application/pgp-signature attachment: stored