John McCabe-Dansted wrote: > 1) The buffer is not dirty: then this isn't really a problem, the user > might not even intend to edit the document. > 2) The buffer is dirty: It is too late to avoid the need for a merge; > a merge will be required anyway. notifying the user earlier rather > than later may make the somewhat easier though. > 3) The exact moment the buffer is marked dirty: This is the one case > where we know there is a problem and also that the user can resolve it > without the need for a merge, just by reloading the document.
yes point 2 makes much sense. > This seems like something that would be trivial to move into a thread. but if we attach it to the code where we already touch file no additional hacking needed. > Yes. From "svn help info": > -r [--revision] ARG : ARG (some commands also take ARG1:ARG2 range) > ... > 'HEAD' latest in repository i see now, nice. i will think about such 'annoucement' feature for svn. pavel
