C. Michael Pilato wrote:
> Julian Foad wrote:
>> On Mon, 2008-10-20 at 14:54 +0200, Stefan Sperling wrote:
>>> On Sat, Oct 18, 2008 at 02:00:39PM +0100, Julian Foad wrote:
>>>> * There must be a way to use "svn merge" to merge a required change
>>>> into a WC to resolve a tree conflict. (The merge currently fails if
>>>> there is any conflict already flagged, which is usually the desired
>>>> behaviour, but not when you're trying to resolve a conflict and need to
>>>> use a merge.)
>>> What about making a merge into a tree conflict victim conditional
>>> on the popular --force switch?
>> Yeah, maybe that really is a valid use of "--force". It looks like a
>> reasonable solution to the problem.
>> (I hereby swear that this really is me saying this. :-) )
> Haha. I'm going to need you to resent your mail, PGP-signed by yourself,
> before I buy this. ;-)
...Hm. How about more like a specific --ignore-conflicts option? What else
would `merge --force' entail? The online help only says "--force force
operation to run". What if I want the existing conflicts ignored but don't
want these other effects, whatever they may be, badly documented as they are?
I, too, don't like --force, except when it's synonymous with a list of other
Also, what is the reason why it should be disallowed at all to merge into a
working copy with conflicts? They are just local changes after all. Is it
only about conflict markers in text files?
Neels Hofmeyr -- elego Software Solutions GmbH
Gustav-Meyer-Allee 25 / Gebäude 12, 13355 Berlin, Germany
phone: +49 30 23458696 mobile: +49 177 2345869 fax: +49 30 23458695
http://www.elegosoft.com | Geschäftsführer: Olaf Wagner | Sitz: Berlin
Handelsreg: Amtsgericht Charlottenburg HRB 77719 | USt-IdNr: DE163214194
Received on 2008-10-21 04:51:04 CEST