Open franher opened 2 years ago
ping @isidorn.
@franher thanks for this great feedback. I agree that the explicit save in the results view (or even when focus is anywhere in merge editor) should trigger "accept merge".
the previous capability of marking a file with conflicts as an "accepted merge" using an "explicit save" command
@franher I am unaware of such previous behaviour. Can add more details what you mean or how it worked before? Technically you are still editing and saving the same file on disk so I wonder what the difference is. The "Accept Merge" action only stages the file but I don't believe we ever did that on save
the previous capability of marking a file with conflicts as an "accepted merge" using an "explicit save" command
@franher I am unaware of such previous behaviour. Can add more details what you mean or how it worked before? Technically you are still editing and saving the same file on disk so I wonder what the difference is. The "Accept Merge" action only stages the file, but I don't believe we ever did that on save
I will try to reproduce both (previous and current behaviour) with a video soon. It will probably help to understand the issue I felt the other day. On the other hand, maybe there is no issue at all. Thank you for your prompt reaction anyway.
@jrieken I'm not expecting to stage the file with the explicit save, but mark the merge as resolved. So when I stage the file, I don't get the message that the file has unresolved merge items.
So when I stage the file, I don't get the message that the file has unresolved merge items.
Can you show a screen capture of that please
With the new "Resolve Conflicts" visualization mode, the previous capability of marking a file with conflicts as an "accepted merge" using an "explicit save" command (i.e. CMD + S on Mac OS) seems to have been lost. It makes the process more complex and slower because you need to click the "Merge" button continuously on the UI.