On Mar 16, 2012 10:50 AM, "Stephen Butler" <sbut...@elego.de> wrote: > On Mar 16, 2012, at 15:31 , Greg Stein wrote: >... >> On Mar 16, 2012 10:03 AM, "Stefan Sperling" <s...@elego.de> wrote: >... >> > Right now, we don't auto-merge the changes, and manually merging them >> > in case they are wanted is a huge hassle. You need to figure out the >> > correct diff to merge first, then run 'svn merge' on the file, or apply the >> > edits manually -- tasks that 'svn' could already have performed on the >> > user's behalf. These manual steps take a lot of time away from users. >> >> Back to a strawman. I never suggested created this difficulty > > Strawman? It's the reality for users since 1.6 came out. You don't have > to take the blame for it, and I won't take _all_ the blame for it, but resolving > tree conflicts is still a lot of tedious work in 1.7. Sort of like tracking merges > in 1.4.
I've never suggested making users run 'svn merge' in this edit/move conflict scenario. The resolution process does that. I just think a conflict should be recorded. We should not make assumptions when an ambiguity arrives. I've posited two possible resolutions for an edit/move conflict. Philip has posited even more outcomes. Version control must be as deterministic as possible. Heuristics(*) are, by definition, non-deterministic. >... Cheers, -g (*) and we can skip the arguments about diff3 applying heuristics; that bridge was crossed long ago, and don't we allow a replaceable tool if the user doesn't like our heuristics?; how would a user replace our heuristic of apply-to-dest unless we raise a conflict?
