On 03/15/2013 06:03 PM, Julian Foad wrote: > NOTIFICATIONS CHANGED > > As I mentioned in my "Conflict resolver callback design" email, doing this > does mean that the notification receiver will get a 'C' (conflict) > notification for every conflict even if that conflict is going to be resolved > to a pre-determined choice. In terms of the 'svn' client and the 'svn merge' > command, this means that 'svn merge --accept=[mine-full, etc.]' will, if we > don't take further action, print something like in this example: > > [[[ > --- Merging r3 through r4 into 'merge_tests-135/A2/mu': > C merge_tests-135/A2/mu > --- Recording mergeinfo for merge of r3 through r4 into > 'merge_tests-135/A2/mu': > G merge_tests-135/A2/mu > Resolved conflicted state of 'merge_tests-135/A2/mu' > --- Merging r6 through r8 into 'merge_tests-135/A2/mu': > U merge_tests-135/A2/mu > --- Merging r10 through r11 into 'merge_tests-135/A2/mu': > U merge_tests-135/A2/mu > --- Recording mergeinfo for merge of r5 through r11 into > 'merge_tests-135/A2/mu': > G merge_tests-135/A2/mu > Summary of conflicts: > Property conflicts: 1 > ]]] > > I think if this was changed to print a slightly different summary, something > like... > > [[[ > Summary of conflicts: > Property conflicts: 0 (and 1 already resolved) > ]]] > > ... then it would be fine. I don't see that the interleaved 'Resolved ...' > line is a problem. > > Do others agree?
The point of the summary section is to draw attention to details that might have whizzed by the screen. Given that, I agree it's a bit misleading to alert the user to a problem which may not really be a problem any longer. So yeah, a change such as what you've suggested makes sense to me. (Sorry, no feedback on your actual patch.) -- C. Michael Pilato <cmpil...@collab.net> CollabNet <> www.collab.net <> Enterprise Cloud Development
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
