[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'.

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]