Re: branch tree-conflicts-notify
From: Stephen Butler <sbutler_at_elego.de>
Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2008 17:28:05 +0200
Quoting Julian Foad <julianfoad_at_btopenworld.com>:
> Neels,
I agree. At my level of expertise, I can't comment usefully on a diff
Neels, I'm sorry if I've been blocking you from committing to the branch
Current status: on the branch, the update-editor and its friends are
Before we merge the tree-conflicts-notify branch into trunk, there are
* Should we print ' C' or ' C(D->M)' for a tree conflict victim?
SB: The latter (in the style of 'svn status --conflicts') is nice,
* How much tree conflict info do we need to pass around in an update
1. svn_boolean_t
2. svn_wc_conflict_reason_t
3. svn_wc_conflict_description_t
SB: I plead for the simplest possible datatype, because then I
* If it turns out that merge's update editor requires substantial
Comments, tree conflict fans?
Regards,
-- Stephen Butler | Software Developer elego Software Solutions GmbH Gustav-Meyer-Allee 25 | 13355 Berlin | Germany fon: +49 30 2345 8696 | mobile: +49 163 25 45 015 fax: +49 30 2345 8695 | http://www.elegosoft.com Geschäftsführer: Olaf Wagner | Sitz der Gesellschaft: Berlin Amtsgericht Charlottenburg HRB 77719 | USt-IdNr: DE163214194 --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe_at_subversion.tigris.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help_at_subversion.tigris.orgReceived on 2008-10-24 17:28:25 CEST |
This is an archived mail posted to the Subversion Dev mailing list.
This site is subject to the Apache Privacy Policy and the Apache Public Forum Archive Policy.