> >>Instead of the MicroKernel trying to merge changes, I would prefer if the > >> MicroKernel would fail if a node was changed, moved or deleted after the > >> base revision of a commit. That way, the MicroKernel API would still > >>need > >> a base revision in the commit call (the base revision would arguably be > >> even more important), but the behaviour would slightly change. > > > >isn't this exactly what Michael described previously in this thread? > > I'm not sure - do you refer to "MK.commit should fail on all but conflicts > which are trivially merged"?
yes, that's what I was referring to. regards marcel
