On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 9:19 AM, Steven Schwartz <sschwartz_at_feedroom.com> wrote:
> Thus far, I've been resisting the urge to say, "Me too," but I strongly agree that Subclipse
> should revert to checkboxes. I periodically go outside Eclipse to the TortoiseSVN interface
> just to do a selective commit. The convenience of checkboxes definitely outweighs the
> inconvenience of window jumping.
No matter what we do we can't win. When the dialogs are like
TortoiseSVN, the users that are experienced with Eclipse and CVS
complain that our dialogs are not as nice as the CVS dialogs. When we
make the dialogs like the CVS ones, then the people that are
experienced with Subversion and other clients complain that they are
not as nice as TortoiseSVN.
Even though I have used Eclipse since 1.0 (or perhaps because of this)
I always tended to use the TortoiseSVN style. Over time, I have come
to appreciate the Eclipse style of working. Particularly the
Synchronize view. Perhaps that is why I have not had problems with
the changes. That view is already a subsetted list of your changes,
so it is easy to select what you want and choose commit.
Another thing I like about the current dialogs is that it is always
clear what is going to be committed or reverted (everything you see in
the dialog). With the revert dialog in particular there were several
times that I would check the boxes to be the opposite of what I
wanted. Probably, because I was thinking more in terms of commit.
The current dialogs are optimized in favor of the scenario that you
typically want to process everything the dialog shows. In the
exception case, you can still remove some items. I think the
checkbox-based dialogs optimize in favor of the scenario that you
typically want to change what the dialog is showing.
I think for now I have talked myself back into leaving it as is.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe_at_subclipse.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help_at_subclipse.tigris.org
Received on 2008-06-12 15:36:05 CEST