Re: --no-interactive-conflicts was Re: Interactively postpone all remaining conflicts?

On Nov 8, 2007 8:10 AM, Justin Erenkrantz <justin@erenkrantz.com> wrote:
> On Nov 6, 2007 4:52 PM, Daniel Rall <dlr@collab.net> wrote:
> > It would be fairly trivial to implement -- we already support runtime
> > configuration which gives analogous behavior via:
> >
> > [miscellany]
> > interactive-conflicts = no
>
> Hijacking the thread for a sec, but I'd really be in favor of adding
> --no-interactive-conflicts (or something similar) as a long-opt.
> (And, I'd probably go so far as to adding this myself if no one
> bites...)
>
> Namely because we added --non-interactive to svnmerge.py (in r26883)
> because it can't handle conflicts; but doing --non-interactive with an
> encrypted SSL client cert means that I have to have my cert password
> in my config. That's badness and I'd really like to avoid that when
> running svnmerge.py; but when I run the client myself, I *love* this
> feature.

Actually, I added that because I found that the driver code in
svnmerge.py couldn't handle *any* requirement from input, but rather
would hang. A better solution would just to be to rewrite the
command-running code in svnmerge.py to actually let the user
interact...

--dave

-- 
David Glasser | glasser_at_davidglasser.net | http://www.davidglasser.net/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org