On Mar 16, 2012 8:58 AM, "Johan Corveleyn" <jcor...@gmail.com> wrote: >... > I do not agree, and I'm really looking forward to the day where > subversion merges text changes into a moved file automatically. > > Of course it's a use case that you had another intention, in which > case this automatic resolution doesn't do the right thing for you. But > I think that's far, far less common than wanting these changes to be > merged automatically. If we really need to support both use cases, > we'd need to look into making the auto-resolution strategy > configurable by the user (but with sensible defaults please).
Possibly. I hate more options/knobs, though. I think the update should ask, "apply edits to A/f to your moved B/f?". We could have --accept=apply-to-moves. > In my eyes, your example isn't really very different from: I moved a > block of code around in a file (or maybe changed the function > signature), and someone else committed the removal of a single line > inside this block. Now, upon update we currently also merge that > one-line change automatically into the moved block of code, right? I > hope we won't start arguing that this should create a text conflict Strawman. No response. Cheers, -g
