Suggestion for Chapter 2 rewording
wuzhouhui14 at mails.ucas.ac.cn
Thu Jan 11 17:41:49 CST 2018
+1. Suppose file a.c has local change:
@@ -0,0 +1 @@
and change received also has same change. So these two changes are "overlap", but not
"conflict". a.c will be marked "G" when update.
发件人:"Richard Cavell" <richardcavell at mail.com>
发送时间:2018-01-12 06:54:31 (星期五)
收件人: svnbook-dev at red-bean.com
主题: Re: Suggestion for Chapter 2 rewording
Sorry. Now that I'm looking at it more closely, I realize that I didn't understand what was being said. But now I think that the word "conflict" would be better than "overlap".
Here's a patch with that change. What do you think?
Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2018 at 10:22 PM
From: "C. Michael Pilato" <cmpilato at red-bean.com>
To: "Richard Cavell" <richardcavell at mail.com>
Cc: svnbook-dev at red-bean.com
Subject: Re: Suggestion for Chapter 2 rewording
Richard, thanks for reading at that level of detail. Unfortunately, your new wording reads as though there are still changes forthcoming from the repository -- that is, they haven't come down and been applied to the working copy yet -- and of course, that's simply not true.
Maybe if you were able to identify precisely what bothers you about the original text, I could give better feedback. Is it the use of the word "overlap" (instead of "conflict")?
On Thu, Jan 11, 2018 at 10:37 AM, Richard Cavell <richardcavell at mail.com> wrote:
The wording of this paragraph in chapter 2 of the Subversion book has always bothered me. I think this patch should explain what I mean, and should provide a clearer understanding to the reader. What do you think?
svnbook-dev mailing list
svnbook-dev at red-bean.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the svnbook-dev