On Sun, May 09, 2010 at 04:54:17PM -0400, Greg Stein wrote:
> On Sun, May 9, 2010 at 09:43, Stefan Sperling <stsp_at_elego.de> wrote:
> > Well, I've been under the impression that the names are currently
> > 100% predictable. Is that not the case?
>
> Nope.
>
> $ svn add foo.c foo.c.left foo.c.1.left
> $ # do something to create conflict file: foo.c.2.left
> $ svn rm foo.c.1.left
>
> If we scanned for the "left" conflict file, we'd stop at foo.c.1.left
> and never find the *real* one: foo.c.2.left
>
> Thus, we have to store the filename that was used.
>
> > Assuming the names are predictable, I don't see a need to record the names,
> > so can you explain what you think would break by not recording them?
> > What problem does it really cause for us, or for users?
>
> As Bert explained, we need to remove them when the user runs "svn
> resolved". He also noted that (somtimes) it is possible manually
> resolve a conflict by removing all the conflict files (a potentially
> debatable feature).
I see. Then let's just add another field to the skel.
I guess we can store this within the conflict-type-specific data?
Storing the basename should be enough since we can assume the file
will be put into the same directory as the conflicted file, right?
Stefan
Received on 2010-05-10 00:05:24 CEST