Question on resolve(d) (Issue 112)

C. Michael Pilato cmpilato at
Mon Jun 2 08:29:12 CDT 2008

Brian W. Fitzpatrick wrote:
> I'm not sure I fully understand what's going on here.  It looks like
> (at least in 1.5 rc8), we now have resolve *and* resolved, both doing
> different things.  If I understand correctly, 'svn resolve' actually
> resolves conflicts according to what you pass in --accept, and 'svn
> resolved' does what it's always done.  The help for 'svn resolve'
> doesn't list 'merged' as an option, so it doesn't seem to be a
> complete superset of 'svn resolved' (even tho it does accept 'merged'
> acc. to the source), so is 'svn resolved' not deprecated?  Is there a
> reason 'merged' is left out of the help for 'svn resolve'?  Should I
> fix the help on trunk and file a CHANGE for the 1.5 branch?

'working' == 'merged'.  The term "merged" binds too closely with the 'svn 
merge' action, and of course that's not the only way to get into a conflict 
like this.  Also, if you say you want the "merged" results, does that mean 
any additional local mods you've made since the update/merge/whatever get 
discarded?  (Which, of course, Subversion can't possibly do.)

So rather than have users scratching their heads, we just called the 
resolution option what it was:  the preservation of the current working 
file, in whatever state it is.

C. Michael Pilato <cmpilato at> |

"The Christian ideal has not been tried and found wanting.  It has
  been found difficult; and left untried."  -- G. K. Chesterton

More information about the svnbook-dev mailing list