On 19 October 2011 17:56, Stefan Küng <tortoisesvn_at_gmail.com> wrote:
> On 19.10.2011 00:54, Simon Large wrote:
>> On 18 October 2011 07:35, Wayne Johnson<wayne_at_zk.com> wrote:
>>> Thank-you for including something constructive instead of just saying
>>> "it sucks because it confuses me fix it."
>>
>> +1
>>
>>>> To make the discussion a bit more constructive, I'd imagine a dialog
>>>> layout like this, that would help me quite a bit:
>>>> http://i56.tinypic.com/e7nj9s.png
>>
>> This screenshot is based on 1.6 I think, although that dialog has not
>> changed a great deal in 1.7. This is not a new problem - it has been
>> there for at least the last 2 years.
>>
>> OK, I hate to admit it but when I think about it again, I'm confused
>> too, and I wrote the docs, dammit! The root of the problem is that the
>> term 'merge' is overloaded.
>>
>> When you update your working copy, repository changes are merged with
>> your local changes. In that situation the 'prefer local' and 'prefer
>> repository' make perfect sense. The instructions for generating that
>> screenshot are in fact based on doing a merge during update.
>>
>> What we are talking about here is a merge from a different path into a
>> clean working copy. In that case both sets of changes (relative to the
>> branch point) are already committed in the repository and they being
>> merged in a working copy. There are no local changes (*) so the term
> [snip]
> > (*) there could be local changes if you merge into a modified working
> > copy (not recommended), or if you are merging several separate ranges,
> > but that is not what we are talking about.
>
> That's not entirely true: a merge of multiple non-sequential revisions
> is done in multiple steps. A conflict can then arise in a later step
> where a local file already received changes from a previous merge step.
> In that case, the local file is already modified.
>
> Thought I had to point this out...
I know. I sort of included that in 'merging several separate ranges'
but didn't make it clear that they were specified as a single merge
op. That case is still confusing for the user because as far as he is
concerned there are no local mods that he made himself.
I don't think we are any nearer to finding a way of clarify the button
text yet :-(
Simon
--
: ___
: oo // \\ "De Chelonian Mobile"
: (_,\/ \_/ \ TortoiseSVN
: \ \_/_\_/> The coolest Interface to (Sub)Version Control
: /_/ \_\ http://tortoisesvn.net
------------------------------------------------------
http://tortoisesvn.tigris.org/ds/viewMessage.do?dsForumId=4061&dsMessageId=2858881
To unsubscribe from this discussion, e-mail: [users-unsubscribe_at_tortoisesvn.tigris.org].
Received on 2011-10-19 19:19:25 CEST
