On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 01:43:51PM +0100, Stefan Sperling wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 12:12:26PM +0100, Daniel Näslund wrote:
> > Local add, incoming add
> > -
> > THEIRS: Put new BASE file/dir in WORKING.
> > MINE: Keep current WORKING file/dir.
>
> In the MINE case
I (Julian Foad) wrote:
> Can you post an updated RFC that incorporates the responses to my and
> Stefan's comments so far?
BTW, the reason I ask is that I hope to make time to comment on it more
extensively in the next few days, and don't want to do that against an
obsolete version!
- Julian
On Fri, 2010-01-22, Daniel Näslund wrote:
> Hi Stefan!
>
> Some comments inline and at the end an attempt to show the options given
> in the tree conflict resolver.
Hi Daniel.
Can you insert a "Terminology" section that says "In this document,
WORKING means the user's version, which possibly has
On Fri, 2010-01-22, Daniel Näslund wrote:
> [[[
> Design spec for tree conflict resolution in the commandline client
> ~~~
>
> The hard part is figuring out in what state the wc is in during the
> different user cases.
>
> The main
Hi Stefan!
Some comments inline and at the end an attempt to show the options given
in the tree conflict resolver.
On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 01:43:51PM +0100, Stefan Sperling wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 12:12:26PM +0100, Daniel Näslund wrote:
> > Local add, incoming add
> > ---
On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 12:12:26PM +0100, Daniel Näslund wrote:
> Local add, incoming add
> -
> THEIRS: Put new BASE file/dir in WORKING.
> MINE: Keep current WORKING file/dir.
In the MINE case, what do you do with the file in BASE which
the update just brought in? It nee
6 matches
Mail list logo
