On Sun, May 09, 2010 at 04:54:17PM -0400, Greg Stein wrote: > On Sun, May 9, 2010 at 09:43, Stefan Sperling <s...@elego.de> wrote: > > Well, I've been under the impression that the names are currently > > 100% predictable. Is that not the case? > > Nope. > > $ svn add foo.c foo.c.left foo.c.1.left > $ # do something to create conflict file: foo.c.2.left > $ svn rm foo.c.1.left > > If we scanned for the "left" conflict file, we'd stop at foo.c.1.left > and never find the *real* one: foo.c.2.left > > Thus, we have to store the filename that was used. > > > Assuming the names are predictable, I don't see a need to record the names, > > so can you explain what you think would break by not recording them? > > What problem does it really cause for us, or for users? > > As Bert explained, we need to remove them when the user runs "svn > resolved". He also noted that (somtimes) it is possible manually > resolve a conflict by removing all the conflict files (a potentially > debatable feature).
I see. Then let's just add another field to the skel. I guess we can store this within the conflict-type-specific data? Storing the basename should be enough since we can assume the file will be put into the same directory as the conflicted file, right? Stefan
