Stefan Sperling wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 03:32:28AM +0100, Branko ??ibej wrote:
>> Thinking of htis some more ... it appears that "A + C", that is, "added
>> with history, tree conflict" would be exactly the right state for such
>> * Added, therefore the file is not in the repo
>> * History would indicate that it is, in fact, the same file (never
>> mind renames, but even those can be tracked from the historic URL)
>> * The conflict says it can't be committed without some extra work
>> * Someday one would expect, e.g., "svn info" and interactive
>> conflict resolution to be able to describe how the file entered
>> such a state; though that's immediately apparent from "svn log"
>> anyway. Icing.
>> That would give you sane local diffs (I'd expect the text-base to be
>> unchanged from before the update in this case), and the revert/resolve
>> path. If you decide to retain the file, the add-with-history is exactly
>> the right way to resurrect it; sort of equivalent to the reverse-merge
>> of the deletion plus local changes. (Though I suspect one wouldn't want
>> to record merge history for this.)
> Yeah, this sounds like a neat idea.
> It certainly makes more sense than "M C".
Indeed. And the idea sounds so [notes/tree-conflicts/scratch-pad.txt]
familiar, even... ;-)
C. Michael Pilato <cmpilato_at_collab.net>
CollabNet <> www.collab.net <> Distributed Development On Demand
Received on 2008-11-26 19:34:38 CET