On Tuesday, November 01, 2011 8:18 AM, "C. Michael Pilato" <cmpilato_at_collab.net> wrote:
> On 11/01/2011 08:00 AM, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> > Stefan2 asks how to ignore the *.{merge-left,merge-right,mine} files
> > when presenting a list of 'svn add' candidates.
> >
> > On IRC his solution is to loop through `svn info | grep
> > '^Conflict.*File: '` in the directory. (The alternative was to strip
> > the extension(s) and `svn info` that.) But we shouldn't really ask API
> > consumers to do that...
> >
> > So, RFC:
> >
> > Subversion should treat the conflict files (the files that occur as
> > values of the dirent abspath members of svn_wc_conflict_description2_t)
> > as ignored files --- as if they were matched by an svn:ignore property
> > or a global-ignores setting. The existing APIs would keep their current
> > behaviour of reporting such files as unversioned files. (Presumably
> > that means adding a new status enum value and coalescing them into
> > 'I'gnored in subversion/svn/status.c and in the API backwards
> > compatibility wrappers.) It would still be possible to 'svn add' such
> > files, just like it's possible to add ignored files today.
> >
> > Alternatively, it is suggested to teach svn_wc_add() (and friends?) to
> > skip such files (with notification) unless --force is passed (i.e., an
> > opt-in feature --- which of course the backward compatibility wrappers
> > will enable).
> >
> > Makes sense?
>
> I think I'm okay with adding this intentional ignoring logic in the
> command-line client (so long as it can be overridden). I'm less okay with
> modifying our APIs to automatically ignore such files.
>
I'm suggesting the APIs ignore such files, not exclude them. That
means the files will still be reported if the API equivalent of --no-
ignore is passed.
> It is a feature that if you wish to do so, you can 'svn add' your reject
> files, force the resolution of your conflict, and commit so that another
> team member can do the work of really resolving the commit.
Stefan2 made the same point on IRC, and that's why I specifically wrote:
> > It would still be possible to 'svn add' such files, just like it's
> > possible to add ignored files today.
> Besides, those reject files shouldn't be lying about anyway if the
> recommended resolution steps have been taken, right?
I don't think we should assume that no one ever has a use-case for not
resolving a conflict as soon as it happens.
Received on 2011-11-01 13:32:25 CET