[svn.haxx.se] · SVN Dev · SVN Users · SVN Org · TSVN Dev · TSVN Users · Subclipse Dev · Subclipse Users · this month's index

Re: Changed handling of conflict file extensions is a usability regression in some situations

From: Mark Phippard <markphip_at_gmail.com>
Date: 2007-04-26 20:07:12 CEST

On 4/26/07, C. Michael Pilato <cmpilato@collab.net> wrote:
> Mark Phippard wrote:
> > On 4/26/07, C. Michael Pilato <cmpilato@collab.net> wrote:
> >> This division seems somewhat arbitrary to me. The reason folks are
> >> seeing
> >> problems with the feature so far is that now the conflict files are
> >> matching
> >> globs meant for versioned files (*.c, *.java). Globs don't care about
> >> file
> >> contents or line-based merge algorithms.
> >
> > True, but so far the examples provided where this was a problem were
> > an IDE that built .java files automatically and a make script that
> > built .c files automatically. Neither of these type tools would have
> > a problem with an extra .jpg file or .doc file lying around.
> >
> > If this was not a global setting, I would not bring it up. But if I
> > mainly want this feature for Word documents, but I do most of my
> > development in Java, I am kind of stuck. I pretty much have to turn
> > the feature off. If this were a per-project setting I might turn it
> > on for my project/repository where my Word docs are stored and leave
> > it off everywhere else.
> >
> > So my thought was to attempt a compromise setting.
>
> This feature request, fulfilled by tweaking a single function in
> update_editor.c, is starting to get out of hand.
>
> I understand the reasoning for a compromise setting, but it's the wrong
> compromise line to draw. A better one might be to make the feature just
> take a list of file extensions you want to preserve. I was just about to
> commit the boolean on/off code change (it's done and tested). I can pretty
> easily do the list-of-extensions-to-preserve thing (small change from where
> my patch already sits).
>
> But I'm not going to code on this any more until there's some consensus in
> this thread. Okey dokey? :-)

Please do not interpret my suggestions as lack of consensus. I am
just trying to help think through this so we get it right. Your
suggestion of a list of extensions sounds find to me and a lot safer.
I am assuming if the boolean value were on, then the file extension
would have to be in the list? Otherwise it would use current
behavior? That sounds pretty good to me.

-- 
Thanks
Mark Phippard
http://markphip.blogspot.com/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Thu Apr 26 20:07:24 2007

This is an archived mail posted to the Subversion Dev mailing list.

This site is subject to the Apache Privacy Policy and the Apache Public Forum Archive Policy.