[svn.haxx.se] · SVN Dev · SVN Users · SVN Org · TSVN Dev · TSVN Users · Subclipse Dev · Subclipse Users · this month's index

Re: 3 propositions for evolutions

From: Alexander Klenin <klenin_at_gmail.com>
Date: 2007-02-13 03:42:09 CET

On 2/13/07, Rick Yorgason <rick@firefang.com> wrote:
> Alexander S. Klenin wrote:
> Now that wouldn't be so bad. And it's doable without extra Subversion
> support, although I'm not sure how clean the code would be. "Use mine"
> would be equivalent to selecting all the revisions in the log and
> choosing "Revert changes made in these revisions".
Hm. It will be _close_, but I am not quite sure exactly the same.
IIUC, "Revert changes" applies "Reverse patch" of affected revisions.
Perhaps there are situations, especially when merge is involved, when
direct patch is applicable but reverse one is not. It needs some
research, IMHO.

> Scott Nicolson wrote:
> > Bingo. This would solve the problem also. That way we could see the
> > changes resulting from the merge.
> You can already do that; right-click on the item in the update window
> and show differences >:)
I think Scott means changes resulting from the merge itself, as
opposed to merge+local modifications.
Another (good?) idea would be "force conflict" option, which would
change successfully merged file into a "pseudo-conflicted" state with
usual "sides" files, but, of course, without in-text conflict markers
since there would be not textual conflicts. Then existing 3-way diff
and resolve machinery could be used. Again, I am afraid it needs
Subversion support.

Alexander S. Klenin
Insight Experts Ltd.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@tortoisesvn.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tortoisesvn.tigris.org
Received on Tue Feb 13 03:42:21 2007

This is an archived mail posted to the TortoiseSVN Dev mailing list.

This site is subject to the Apache Privacy Policy and the Apache Public Forum Archive Policy.