Re: Automatic tree conflicts resolution during svn update

On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 3:25 PM, Stefan Sperling <stsp_at_elego.de> wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 03:04:56PM +0200, Johan Corveleyn wrote:
>> Okay, but doesn't "postpone" still needs to have a well defined
>> behavior (and probably "as good as possible"), even if only for
>> supporting the --accept=postpone command line option?
>
> What is "as good as possible"?
>
> The --accept postpone option (or equivalent menu option) simply
> leaves the conflicted node as-is. I don't think we can make the
> incoming edit visible without updating the moved file.

I'd say, just edit the moved file with the incoming content, embedded
in conflict markers, just like what we do for text conflicts. That, I
think, would be as good as possible.

--
Johan