work-in-progress tree conflicts diff, please comment

Stefan Sperling stsp at
Thu Jan 8 07:51:19 CST 2009

On Tue, Jan 06, 2009 at 01:04:38PM +0000, Julian Foad wrote:
> But next, I think it would be better in the main flow of text to
> describe only how tree conflicts work in Subversion 1.6, and not assume
> that readers have started with v1.5 and are interested in the
> differences. For those readers (and there will be many, of course) I
> would put some "comparison with v1.5" notes in a side-bar.

Yes. I've done so, thanks. See r3399.

> > +      <para>Since Subversion 1.6, this and other similar situations
> > +        are flagged as conflicts in the working copy. As with textual
> > +        conflicts, tree conflicts prevent a commit from being made
> > +        from the conflicted state, forcing the user to examine the
> Perhaps saying "giving the user the opportunity" instead of "forcing",
> since (a) it gives a better impression and (b) the user does indeed have
> the option of doing a recursive "accept=X" to avoid examining the
> problems.

Yes.  Changed this, too. We also used 'force' with respect to textual
conflicts in the first paragraph of this section. Because I could
not find a better way to phrase it there ("giving the opportunity"
sounds a bit weak in case of text conflicts), I've added a footnote
which says:

  Well, you could mark files containing conflict markers as resolved
  and commit them, if you really wanted to. But this is rarely done
  in practice.
Thanks Julian,

More information about the svnbook-dev mailing list