Question on resolve(d) (Issue 112)
C. Michael Pilato
cmpilato at red-bean.com
Mon Jun 2 08:29:12 CDT 2008
Brian W. Fitzpatrick wrote:
> I'm not sure I fully understand what's going on here. It looks like
> (at least in 1.5 rc8), we now have resolve *and* resolved, both doing
> different things. If I understand correctly, 'svn resolve' actually
> resolves conflicts according to what you pass in --accept, and 'svn
> resolved' does what it's always done. The help for 'svn resolve'
> doesn't list 'merged' as an option, so it doesn't seem to be a
> complete superset of 'svn resolved' (even tho it does accept 'merged'
> acc. to the source), so is 'svn resolved' not deprecated? Is there a
> reason 'merged' is left out of the help for 'svn resolve'? Should I
> fix the help on trunk and file a CHANGE for the 1.5 branch?
'working' == 'merged'. The term "merged" binds too closely with the 'svn
merge' action, and of course that's not the only way to get into a conflict
like this. Also, if you say you want the "merged" results, does that mean
any additional local mods you've made since the update/merge/whatever get
discarded? (Which, of course, Subversion can't possibly do.)
So rather than have users scratching their heads, we just called the
resolution option what it was: the preservation of the current working
file, in whatever state it is.
C. Michael Pilato <cmpilato at red-bean.com> | http://cmpilato.blogspot.com/
"The Christian ideal has not been tried and found wanting. It has
been found difficult; and left untried." -- G. K. Chesterton
More information about the svnbook-dev