On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 11:08:34AM -0400, Mark Phippard wrote:
> I do not think we HAVE to do this feature. It would be nice, but it seems
> to raise some challenging problems that make it less nice. Personally, I
> just think we should not do anything, including the changelists, and leave
> the recommendation of using a template.
What's wrong with adding this feature when there are clearly
people who need it? If the template solution covered all needs
this thread wouldn't even exist.
Overall, I think this thread got hung up in details.
It seems a bit early to discuss implementation details (changelists
vs. props) when there isn't even agreement on the desired feature set.
Can we focus on that first, and then argue about how to implement it?
In http://svn.haxx.se/dev/archive-2011-08/0469.shtml Julian suggested
to create a document in style of a referance manual to document what
we really want. I think this would be a good next step if it hasn't
My own view on this is as follows:
Ideas floating in this thread have covered behaviour of commit, update,
diff, status, merge, and repository-wide configuration of held nodes.
In my mind, the most important items are, in order:
- behaviour of commit
- repository-wide configuration of held nodes
I think we should initially aim for some minimal solution which
addresses these points and leaves room for further extension.
I don't really care how it's implemented.
Making additional subcommands do fancy things with held-back nodes is
nice but not really necessary to solve the problems this feature is
supposed to address.
Received on 2011-08-24 17:45:23 CEST