work-in-progress tree conflicts diff, please comment

Julian Foad julianfoad at
Thu Jan 8 08:38:27 CST 2009

On Thu, 2009-01-08 at 14:51 +0100, Stefan Sperling wrote:
> 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.

- Julian

More information about the svnbook-dev mailing list