On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 02:01:59PM +0200, Bert Huijben wrote: > > Why only 3 values now? > > I remember you tweaking the code to pass all 4 values a few weeks (months?) > ago.
The end goal is 4 values, yes. I'm still unsure how to name the corresponding output parameters though. So, for now, I've kept the existing scheme. This also made is a bit easier to focus on converting the resolver code to use svn_string_t. > Since 1.9 you can assume that we have the actual values in ram, stored in the > new fields of the conflict description, that you added for 1.9. Oh, seems I simply forgot about that! Thanks, will look into it.
