> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mark Phippard [mailto:markphip_at_gmail.com]
> Sent: Friday, 15 February 2013 09:23
> To: Philip Martin; dev_at_subversion.apache.org
> Subject: Re: move conflict resolution UI (was: Re: branch 1.8 or at least
start
> making alpha releases?)
>
> On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 9:20 AM, Mark Phippard <markphip_at_gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 9:07 AM, Stefan Sperling <stsp_at_elego.de> wrote:
> >
> >> Note that I am referring to options offered by the CLI user
> >> interface, not the API. The API might expose more low-level
> >> operations as has been requested by GUI client developers in the
> >> past. But since we haven't really advanced the conflict resolution
> >> API yet, I suppose we should try to do the best we can do for 1.8 using
the
> existing API.
> >
> > I would be fine if the API provides more options, as long as it also
> > provides the same options as the CLI. IOW, if the CLI has an option
> > to resolve conflicts and under the covers it resolves different
> > conflicts in different ways, I would want a simple option like that in
> > the API too. I would not want to have to reimplement the same
> > decision logic as the CLI and then call a lower level API.
>
> Since I have seen this mentioned on IRC, let me also just add that I think
ideally
> update should just resolve these conflicts automatically and never even
raise
> them to the user. IOW, if I have moved a file locally and I do an update
I
> would want update to just apply those changes to the moved file
> automatically. This would show up as a 'G'
> in the update notification, and I think that is good enough in terms of
letting
> me know. If I did not want the updates applied to my file, then I would
have
> copied it, not moved.
I would only hesitate to agree with automatic resolution, where the logic is
overly complex and open to different expectations by different end users.
Automatic resolution of conflicts, IMHO, are only useful, where the intent
is clear and unambiguous.
The actual outcome may not be what "I" wanted / expected - but the fact that
I don't need to exert a lot of time and effort to decipher what has actually
happened (using your example above) is the most important for me,
personally.
Previously in this thread [1] Phillip Martin explored some use cases for
automatic resolution, I 'm not sure whether he was asking for feedback on
those plans - or whether they were statements? Regardless, again - I have
no issue with automatic resolution of conflicts - if the end-result is
easily understood and doesn't leave me wondering,
"How the heck did that happen? That doesn't even make sense, let alone does
it match what I expecting to happen."
[1] http://svn.haxx.se/dev/archive-2013-02/0202.shtml
Gavin.
Received on 2013-02-15 16:15:50 CET