On Fri, May 2, 2008 at 10:13 AM, Karl Fogel <kfogel_at_red-bean.com> wrote:
> "David Glasser" <glasser_at_davidglasser.net> writes:
> >> > Log:
> >> > Retool conflict resolver menu into three sections:
> >> >
> >> > Edit the merged file:
> >> > (e) edit - change merged file in an editor
> >> > (df) diff-full - show all changes made to merged file
> >> > (r) resolved - accept merged version of file
> >> > Just deal with the conflicts (ignoring merged file):
> >> > (dc) display-conflict - shows all conflicts
> >> > (mc) mine-conflict - accept my version for all conflicts
> >> > (tc) theirs-conflict - accept their version for all conflicts
> >> > General:
> >> > (p) postpone - mark the conflict to be resolved later
> >> > (l) launch - launch external tool to resolve conflict
> >> > (s) show all - show this list
> >>
>
> > I definitely appreciate the feedback. My major concern is to make
> > clear that *only* e/df/r has anything to do with the merged file; if
> > the user spends time on "e" but then uses either the conflict commands
> > (dc/mc/tc) or the full-file commands (mf/tf), their work in the editor
> > will be completely ignored.
> >
> > Thus, my goal is to organize commands that are intended to be used
> > together together, not commands that are superficially similar.
>
> I understand the goal now... but I wonder if communicating those kinds
> of things is really possible in an interactive prompt. I think maybe
> the best we can do is just clearly describe each option. You could give
> a sense of grouping by simply having blank lines:
>
>
> (e) edit - change merged file in an editor
> (df) diff-full - show all changes made to merged file
> (r) resolved - accept merged version of file
>
>
> (dc) display-conflict - shows all conflicts
> (mc) mine-conflict - accept my version for all conflicts
> (tc) theirs-conflict - accept their version for all conflicts
>
>
> (p) postpone - mark the conflict to be resolved later
> (l) launch - launch external tool to resolve conflict
> (s) show all - show this list
>
> That way there's an implication that "these things go together", but
> without the extra words on the screen to worry the user.
OK, but I'd want to then add "ignoring merged file" to all three
-conflict lines. I had that originally, but it was both
> By the way, the "(mf)" and "(tf)" options are still there, right? Just
> not shown in the initial list?
Oops! Leaving them out was a mistake.
> If so, then the "(s)" description should
> be "show all options" or "show additional options" or something. Point
> is, if it shows more, then "show this list" is not quite accurate,
> that's all.
I possibly wasn't clear in the log message: this text *is* the (s)how
all response, not the initial prompt that the user gets. Does that
make a difference to your opinion?
I definitely agree with you and cmpilato about the newlines.
--dave
--
David Glasser | glasser@davidglasser.net | http://www.davidglasser.net/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe_at_subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help_at_subversion.tigris.org
Received on 2008-05-02 19:42:10 CEST