On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 12:24 PM, Stefan Sperling <s...@apache.org> wrote: > On Mon, Feb 20, 2017 at 08:57:24PM +0100, Johan Corveleyn wrote: >> Am I right that the same goes for "delete file" (local change) and >> "edit file" (incoming change)? If so I can extend that row from >> "delete directory" to "delete item" for the local change. > > Yes.
OK, done in r1783953. > More generally, the 'mark as resolved' option (aka 'accept current wc state') > will retain the state left behind after the merge/update/switch operation if > the state was not modified by the user in the meantime. We could try to make > the resolver print better descriptions of 'r' options in specific cases, for > example: > > (r) keep file 'foo' deleted > > Implementing this in a general way would require: > > A) Making a list of all the WC configurations the update/merge/switch > operations leave behind for many possible tree conflicts to give us > an idea of where we could improve 'mark resolved' option descriptions. > > B) Implementing checks which verify that the current WC configuration still > matches this expected configuration, and falling back to the generic > 'acccept current wc state' description if it does not match. > >> Is it also possible to revert the local deletion and accept the >> incoming change(s) from within the resolver? I think that would be a >> nice "alternative action" in this case (but postponing and then >> reverting from outside of the resolver seems a bit cumbersome and less >> intuitive for the user). > > There is no option which handles this case yet. It would be good to have one. > > For the moment I have stopped adding more options because I would like to > implement additional options based on end user feedback, instead of guessing > what end users might want. Okay, understood. -- Johan
