“Contents conflict” is unclear to users, replace with “kind conflict” and “status conflict”

Bug #745491 reported by Andrew Bennetts
8
This bug affects 1 person
Affects Status Importance Assigned to Milestone
Bazaar
Confirmed
High
Unassigned

Bug Description

“Contents conflict” regularly confuses users, that don't understand what it means or how it differs from common (i.e. “text”) conflicts.

I think it'd be clearer to label them “status conflicts” (for cases such as modified vs. deleted, and added vs. renamed to the same path) and “kind conflicts” (for cases like one side changing a directory to a file, the other changing it to a symlink; or for kind change vs. a file modified change). I think these terms are still consistent with our internal model, and consistent with terminology we use elsewhere in our UI and docs.

A less ambitious change proposed by vila is to rename “contents conflict” to “tree shape conflict”. I think that would be an incremental improvement, but not as good as “status conflict” and “kind conflict”.

Revision history for this message
Vincent Ladeuil (vila) wrote :

+1

The actual 'content conflict' reflects the implementation, from a user point of view, the conflicts should be refined into more focused types which will make them easier to understand.

The main issue in adding new conflict types is backward compatibility but considering that the file is short-lived we may just want to *not* support upgrades or give the alternative: bzr revert or delete checkout/conflicts + commit.

Jelmer Vernooij (jelmer)
tags: added: check-for-breezy
To post a comment you must log in.
This report contains Public information  
Everyone can see this information.

Other bug subscribers

Remote bug watches

Bug watches keep track of this bug in other bug trackers.