On 20/09/2007, Stefan Küng <email@example.com> wrote:
> Lübbe Onken wrote:
> > Hi Simon,
> > You wrote:
> >> it makes sense to refer to a file copy as a branch as well). 'Copy'
> >> would be a better word for the file context menu. For the folder
> >> context menu, we could use 'Branch/Tag/Copy' which would avoid the
> >> occasional question we get about 'how do I make a copy?', although
> >> it would make the context menu entry longer.
> > IMHO the context menu entry could be just 'Copy' all the time. The
> > caption 'Copy (Branch/Tag)' is already used in the following dialog
> > for clarification. Our right drag handler also only says 'SVN copy
> > ...' for all dragged items and not 'svn copy (branch/tag)' :)
> > Just my $0.02
> If you remember the discussions we had in the starting days of TSVN:
> Simply "Copy" doesn't work for most users because they don't know that a
> branch/tag is made by using the copy command.
> And no, they also don't read the docs...
Agreed. The 'branch/tag' term is a good one when applied to
directories, and makes the purpose of the operation clearer than the
native subversion 'copy'. But there is no such justification for using
that term for files. No-one ever refers to a single file as a branch
because you can't check it out to work on it. I suppose in theory you
could 'tag' a file as a means of recording its state without having to
remember a revision number.
OK, how about using "Copy to URL" when invoked for a file? That makes
it more obvious that it's not intended for making a copy within a WC
or between WCs.
One other thing I just noticed: when copying a file in the copy
(branch/tag) dialog, the 'switch working copy to new branch/tag'
checkbox should be disabled or hidden.
oo // \\ "De Chelonian Mobile"
(_,\/ \_/ \ TortoiseSVN
\ \_/_\_/> The coolest Interface to (Sub)Version Control
/_/ \_\ http://tortoisesvn.net
To unsubscribe, e-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org
For additional commands, e-mail: email@example.com
Received on Thu Sep 20 23:08:48 2007