On Fri, Jan 26, 2018 at 10:00:00AM +0100, Johan Corveleyn wrote: > If there is an obvious resolution, just do it (only if there is > ambiguity, ask the user). Except for those users that really, really > want to be bogged down by every trivial conflict. I'd say less that > 0,1 % of our users is even interested in thinking about tree > conflicts. > > One of the problems with unintended replacements is that it's > impossible to fix the damage afterwards. Line of history gets broken, > and we can't fix that in the history in the backend.
Regardless of this particular issue, making 'svn patch' use the conflict resolver would be great. It would also make this discussion easier because we'd have a clear path for handling ambiguous situations.
