On 06/12/2013 06:57 PM, Johan Corveleyn wrote:
> 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.
+1 on the thought
Received on 2013-06-12 15:56:56 CEST