[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: vc-dir with Subversion
From: |
Nick Roberts |
Subject: |
Re: vc-dir with Subversion |
Date: |
Sat, 4 Apr 2009 12:13:09 +1300 |
Richard M Stallman writes:
> 1) Prior to updating.
> 2) After updating.
>
> but labels the status with the keyword `conflict' in both cases. In the
> latter case all other keywords use the past tense: removed, edited,
> unregistered etc. To avoid confusion I suggest that we use the keyword
> `conflicted' for this case. The patch below does this.
>
> The difference between "conflict" and "conflicted" is small.
> If this distinction is important, I think it is important to make
> it more prominent.
>
> Which of these two cases is a CVS conflict similar to?
vc-dir with CVS doesn't recognise the first case and just reports the state
as `needs-merge'. That's because it uses the command `cvs status' which
doesn't report that therre will be a conflict (it gives "Status: Needs Patch"
in this case. Interestingly "cvs -n up" does recognise there would be a
conflict in it's output (with the letter `C').
> I think it is case 2, that a conflict in CVS is reported
> after updating. If that is true, it seems to me that case 2
> should be described with "conflict" and case 1 should have
> some other name.
It is case 2. I didn't consider CVS in my e-mail, but I think it would be
more logical to change that case (CVS) to `conflicted'.