On Sat, Jan 14, 2012 at 9:13 AM, HansBKK <[email protected]> wrote: >> > I honestly think the lack of a clear statement on this topic in the docs >> > dangerous for relative newcomers to Leo and threatens its acceptance as a >> > data-safe working environment.
The post "All about clone conflicts" is my response. Imo, the only thing dangerous about Leo is deliberately ignoring Leo's warnings. > IMO a better solution would be some type of mechanism in Leo that allowed the > user to specify explicitly which branch of the outline should be considered > the canonical one. As I said in "All about clone conflicts", this is never going to happen. Leo's read code is already too complex. Trying to guess what the user wants will make it much more complex, and therefore less reliable and more difficult to explain. Put it another way, there *already is* a way to specify explicitly which branch of the outline is the "canonical" branch: it's the last branch in the outline that contains the clone. Edward -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "leo-editor" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/leo-editor?hl=en.
