Stefan Küng <tortoisesvn <at> gmail.com> writes:
> On 5/15/07, Slim and Steve <slimandsteve <at> googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> [snip]
> > That's okay. Now another attempt:
> >
> > 1) modify foo.txt && bar.txt
> > 2) call commit dialog and select foo.txt && bar.txt (or just leave
> > them selected)
>
> alternatively: open DOS box, enter
> svn commit . -m "some log message"
> (the dot indicates the current dir, since you want to commit everything)
> > 3) standby/hibernate - wakeup cycle
>
> not really necessary. Has nothing to do with that.
Maybe. I never observed what I reported under any other circumstances than
after standby/hibernation.
> > 4) modify newfoo.txt
> >
> > 5) now foo.txt, bar.txt, newfoo.txt are committed (newfoo.txt should
> > have not)
>
> alternatively: hit enter in the DOS box to execute your pre-written command.
> surprise: the very same thing happens!?!?
Different animal. Checkmarking by chance all files in a list is entirely
different from blindly dotting an avalanche of all files, intentionally forgoing
any selection.
> > That's not okay, but what happened to me several times this last
> > year or so. It is, however, exactly what Stefan Fuhrmann described
> > in his other reply, only that I should have done this test before
> > posting - with three files things are a little easier to figure than with
> > a whole bunch, furthermore interspersed with files not yet/never to
> > be added. When it happened I never paid attention to the thought if
> > I had specifically selected some files or if it happened to be all
> > modified files under version control.
> >
> > Looks like a workaround necessitating another workaround in some
> > cases. ;)
>
> Seriously, what do you expect?
To behave naturally. Or logically if you prefer.
> You modified a file *after* TSVN
> checked the files. You then simply told TSVN to commit everything
> (having all files checked means everything), and it does: you just
> don't see that there's another modified file there because you didn't
> refresh the commit dialog (hit F5).
I never told RSVN to just commit everything and the girl, I walked through a
list of files that were modified etc. and might be subject to commit. It
happened that I checkmarked all suggested files for commit. The same may happen
in DOS, and SVN would not *assume* because I had included all files suggested by
svn status in the -F filelist I would want to include all files modified
furtheron some time later, too (I hope it does not!). Either there is a list to
edit or checkmark, and then only these should be committed, or there is a dot or
some other option to take everything without further inspection. The check/
uncheck all option is no argument, it's a convenience or else it should disable
the checkboxes in the list.
Probably this is not possible as Stefan Fuhrmann indicated with reference to SVN
libraries, and probably no one else has the silly idea to continue with some
other work if a commit fails due to an unavailable server or down network
connection (or isn't that one reason why the commit dialog conveniently pops up
again in case of failure?), especially if standby/hibernation have nothing to do
with this as you say. Yeah, convenience may have a penalty over safty here.
Steve
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@tortoisesvn.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tortoisesvn.tigris.org
Received on Tue May 15 18:45:39 2007