On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 9:20 AM, Mark Phippard <markp...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 9:07 AM, Stefan Sperling <s...@elego.de> wrote: > >> Note that I am referring to options offered by the CLI user interface, >> not the API. The API might expose more low-level operations as has been >> requested by GUI client developers in the past. But since we haven't >> really advanced the conflict resolution API yet, I suppose we should >> try to do the best we can do for 1.8 using the existing API. > > I would be fine if the API provides more options, as long as it also > provides the same options as the CLI. IOW, if the CLI has an option > to resolve conflicts and under the covers it resolves different > conflicts in different ways, I would want a simple option like that in > the API too. I would not want to have to reimplement the same > decision logic as the CLI and then call a lower level API.
Since I have seen this mentioned on IRC, let me also just add that I think ideally update should just resolve these conflicts automatically and never even raise them to the user. IOW, if I have moved a file locally and I do an update I would want update to just apply those changes to the moved file automatically. This would show up as a 'G' in the update notification, and I think that is good enough in terms of letting me know. If I did not want the updates applied to my file, then I would have copied it, not moved. -- Thanks Mark Phippard http://markphip.blogspot.com/
