Question on resolve(d) (Issue 112)

[C. Michael Pilato]

Just mark them as deprecated, and xref to the 'svn resolve' section.  We 
should probably migrate any examples of using 'svn resolved' elsewhere in 
the book, too.

Brian W. Fitzpatrick wrote:
> So should I remove the docs for resolved or just label them as deprecated?
> 
> -Fitz
> 
> On Mon, Jun 2, 2008 at 8:31 AM, C. Michael Pilato <cmpilato at red-bean.com> wrote:
>> By the way, the help text for 'svn resolved' actually gives the hint you
>> probably needed:
>>
>>   ... deprecated in favor of running 'svn resolve --accept working'
>>
>> 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?
>>>
>>> -Fitz, thoroughly confused.
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> svnbook-dev mailing list
>>> svnbook-dev at red-bean.com
>>> http://www.red-bean.com/mailman/listinfo/svnbook-dev
>>>
>>
>> --
>> C. Michael Pilato <cmpilato at red-bean.com> | http://cmpilato.blogspot.com/
>>
>> "The Christian ideal has not been tried and found wanting.  It has
>>  been found difficult; and left untried."  -- G. K. Chesterton
>>
>>
> 


-- 
C. Michael Pilato <cmpilato at red-bean.com> | http://cmpilato.blogspot.com/

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