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

Re: svn commit: r31503 - branches/1.5.x/subversion/svn

From: Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis <arfrever.fta_at_gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 29 May 2008 18:29:57 +0200

2008-05-28 23:49:24 Lieven Govaerts napisaƂ(a):
> arfrever_at_tigris.org wrote:
> > Author: arfrever
> > Date: Wed May 28 12:18:31 2008
> > New Revision: 31503
> >
> > Log:
> > On the '1.5.x' branch:
> > Follow-up to r31501:
> >
> > * subversion/svn/main.c
> > (svn_cl__cmd_table."resolve"): Use values of some constant definitions
> > directly.
> >
> > Modified:
> > branches/1.5.x/subversion/svn/main.c
> >
> > Modified: branches/1.5.x/subversion/svn/main.c
> > URL: http://svn.collab.net/viewvc/svn/branches/1.5.x/subversion/svn/main.c?pathrev=31503&r1=31502&r2=31503
> > ==============================================================================
> > --- branches/1.5.x/subversion/svn/main.c Wed May 28 12:13:37 2008 (r31502)
> > +++ branches/1.5.x/subversion/svn/main.c Wed May 28 12:18:31 2008 (r31503)
> > @@ -787,14 +787,10 @@ const svn_opt_subcommand_desc2_t svn_cl_
> > {opt_targets, 'R', opt_depth, 'q', opt_accept},
> > {{opt_accept, N_("specify automatic conflict resolution source\n"
> > " "
> > - "('" SVN_CL__ACCEPT_BASE "',"
> > - " '" SVN_CL__ACCEPT_WORKING "',"
> > - /* These two are not implemented yet, so
> > - don't waste the user's time with them. */
> > - /* " '" SVN_CL__ACCEPT_MINE_CONFLICT "'," */
> > - /* " '" SVN_CL__ACCEPT_THEIRS_CONFLICT "'," */
> > - " '" SVN_CL__ACCEPT_MINE_FULL "',"
> > - " '" SVN_CL__ACCEPT_THEIRS_FULL "')")}} },
> > + "('base', 'working', 'mine-full', 'theirs-full')")}} },
> > + /* 'mine-conflict' and 'theirs-conflict' are
> > + not implemented yet, so don't waste
> > + the user's time with them. */
> >
> > { "resolved", svn_cl__resolved, {0}, N_
> > ("Remove 'conflicted' state on working copy files or directories.\n"
> >
> Hey Arfrever,
>
> is there a special reason why this change has a) not passed STATUS

I thought that it was obvious fix. It didn't change actual output.

> b) committed directly to the 1.5.x branch instead of being merged?

It wouldn't have merged cleanly.
What do you think about `svn merge --record-only -c31484,31491,31496,31500,31502`?

-- 
Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis

Received on 2008-05-29 18:35:09 CEST

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