Michael Haggarty makes what I think is a valid complaint about the new
'changelist' feature in, oddly enough, a blog comment. You can read it here:
http://blogs.open.collab.net/svn/2007/07/one-quality-of-.html#comment-84263984
For your convenience, I'll reproduce comment here:
Posted by: Michael Haggerty | September 27, 2007 at 08:13 AM
> > $ svn cl foo plaza.jpg
> > Path 'plaza.jpg' is now a member of changelist 'foo'.
> > $ svn cl bar plaza.jpg
> > Path 'plaza.jpg' is now a member of changelist 'bar'.
> > $ ...
>
> Yikes, there is no error or warning if you move a file from one
> changelist to another? This sounds like trouble. If I've modified a
> file as part of changelist A, then (forgetting changelist A) add it
> to changelist B, then commit changelist A, then my commit is
> probably broken.
>
> What would be really sweet would be a way to stash a selected
> changelist away somewhere (e.g., as a patch) and unapply the
> corresponding changes from the working copy. This would allow me to
> test a spontaneous mini-fix before committing it, without having to
> worry that the "main" work-in-progress is affecting the results my
> unit tests (the main work-in-progress might prevent my code from
> even compiling and/or running, or even worse, the mini-fix might
> work *only* because of changes made in the work-in-progress).
>
> I've been working with quilt a lot lately, and appreciate its
> ability to apply/unapply patches easily. With quilt, it is easy to
> "pop" the main work-in-progress from the stack of applied patches,
> implement the quick fix, test, commit, then "push" the main patch
> back onto the working copy. The SVN changelist concept is obviously
> somewhat different than quilt's model (for example, quilt imposes a
> linear ordering of the patches under its control), but the analogy
> could nevertheless be useful.
>
> "Stashable" changelists would also be a way to allow a single file
> to participate in multiple changelists at the same time, provided
> all but one of the changelists is "stashed" away. Well, I guess that
> isn't really "at the same time", but rather "in quick alternation"
> :-)
--
C. Michael Pilato <cmpilato@collab.net>
CollabNet <> www.collab.net <> Distributed Development On Demand
Received on Thu Sep 27 17:35:11 2007