On Fri, May 30, 2008 at 12:12 PM, Justin Erenkrantz
<justin_at_erenkrantz.com> wrote:
> On Sun, May 4, 2008 at 9:06 PM, <kfogel_at_tigris.org> wrote:
>> Author: kfogel
>> Date: Sun May 4 21:06:23 2008
>> New Revision: 31024
>>
>> Log:
>> * subversion/svn/conflict-callbacks.c
>> (svn_cl__conflict_handler): Redo interactive prompts for compactness,
>> following IRC discussion with glasser. Follows up to r30919.
>>
>> Modified:
>> trunk/subversion/svn/conflict-callbacks.c
>>
>> Modified: trunk/subversion/svn/conflict-callbacks.c
>> URL: http://svn.collab.net/viewvc/svn/trunk/subversion/svn/conflict-callbacks.c?pathrev=31024&r1=31023&r2=31024
>> ==============================================================================
>> --- trunk/subversion/svn/conflict-callbacks.c Sun May 4 17:22:09 2008 (r31023)
>> +++ trunk/subversion/svn/conflict-callbacks.c Sun May 4 21:06:23 2008 (r31024)
>> @@ -455,22 +465,24 @@ svn_cl__conflict_handler(svn_wc_conflict
>> if (strcmp(answer, "s") == 0)
>> {
>> SVN_ERR(svn_cmdline_fprintf(stderr, subpool,
>> - _("Edit the merged file:\n"
>> + _("\n"
>> " (e) edit - change merged file in an editor\n"
>> - " (df) diff-full - show all changes made to merged file\n"
>> + " (df) diff-full - show all changes made to merged "
>> + "file\n"
>> " (r) resolved - accept merged version of file\n"
>> "\n"
>> - "Just deal with the conflicts (ignoring merged version):\n"
>> - " (dc) display-conflict - show all conflicts\n"
>> - " (mc) mine-conflict - accept my version for all conflicts\n"
>> + " (dc) display-conflict - show all conflicts "
>> + "(ignoring merged version)\n"
>> + " (mc) mine-conflict - accept my version for all "
>> + "conflicts (same)\n"
>> " (tc) theirs-conflict - accept their version for all "
>> - "conflicts\n"
>> + "conflicts (same)\n"
>
> From the peanut gallery, as a lowly user who just ran into this, I
> have to admit that I think this change didn't help clarify things at
> all.
>
> In particular, the "(same)" comment makes no sense to me. In this
> context, same likely means "what I already have" - not "see above"
> which is what I *think* you mean, but even then I'm not quite sure.
> Heck, "ditto" would have made more sense. =)
>
> Anyone have a better suggestion? But, 'same' just doesn't seem like
> the appropriate choice of wording here for this prompt. The context
> just renders that word useless, IMO.
I still like my "sections with headers".
--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 2008-05-30 19:43:33 CEST