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.
--
Thanks
Mark Phippard
http://markphip.blogspot.com/
Received on 2013-02-15 16:23:56 CET