On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 11:44 AM, Stefan Sperling <stsp_at_elego.de> wrote:
> 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.
>
There is nothing wrong with adding it and I believe I have said that. I
have also said that I was in favor of solving the issue. All I am saying is
that Neels has done some good work looking at what that feature means in its
entirety and he has uncovered a number of things to consider. He happens to
not think they are a big deal, which is fine. I am simply saying that one
option we have is to not implement the feature until we have a better answer
for those considerations. That is all I am saying. If implementing the
feature requires us to do a bunch of ugly things we do not like, then maybe
we just should not do it until we have a better answer.
We seem to be in agreement that this feature should not impact update. So
that is one problem off the table. AFAIK, there are open issues asking for
this though so we have to be in agreement we do NOT agree that this should
be done.
Merge remains a problem. Namely that if merge updates files with the
svn:hold property the changes to those files will not be committed. I think
the changelist design gives us more options in this area, but maybe they are
too hacky.
--
Thanks
Mark Phippard
http://markphip.blogspot.com/
Received on 2011-08-24 18:05:29 CEST