Ben Collins-Sussman wrote:
> It's interesting where this thread has gone! I originally proposed a
> tiny bookkeeping feature, based on the fact that I (and others) have
> become addicted to said bookkeeping when using perforce every day. I
> was initially worried that the discussion would start heading down a
> path of "stop crawling the working copy, store changelists in
> ~/.subversion/", which is a very perforce-like thing to do.
>
Indeed! Incidentally, I wasn't voting *for* any SCM methodology, I just
wondered if that's where this was going.
WRT the "shelf" idea, why shouldn't this just be an SVN command that can
automatically "trim" a WC down to the minimum number of files or folders
that hold all changes made to date? This should be possible just by
looking at WC data (local operation), and after operation the trimmed WC
*is* the shelf. Then, all the user needs to do is checkout a new WC for
the next set of changes. To unshelf, all that's needed is to re-sync the
shelved WC from the repo. This sounds a lot cheaper than "local
checkins", both to implement and from the feature-bloat perspective.
Does this make sense? If so I might expand this as a feature proposal
and/or look at the code overhead to implement?
--Tim
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Sat Apr 22 00:36:49 2006