"Justin Erenkrantz" <justin_at_erenkrantz.com> writes:
>> --- trunk/subversion/svn/conflict-callbacks.c (r31023)
>> +++ trunk/subversion/svn/conflict-callbacks.c (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.
Okay, I hear you. I think I even agree with you :-).
I'd really like to avoid the "sections with headers" style that David
Glasser is advocating, as I both found that confusing myself and think
most users would find it even more confusing than I did. For one thing,
the user is unaware that the merged version even exists at this stage --
that's an implementation detail. From the user's point of view, the
merged version is something the user *is deciding whether or not to
create* right now -- so when the prompts refer to it, the user gets
confused in time and space and may be reduced to a quivering mound of
protoplasm. That in turn will hurt the kittens. And nobody wants to
hurt the kittens. Right?
I think "ditto", "likewise", or "see above" could substitute for "same"
(assuming they fit, which I haven't checked yet).
Besides the "same" issue, was there anything else specifically that
didn't work for you?
-Karl
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe_at_subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help_at_subversion.tigris.org
Received on 2008-06-02 04:14:19 CEST