levyam Full name Andy Levy Date 2009-08-02 03:33:55 PDT Message On Sat, Aug
1, 2009 at 21:49, Nick Sabalausky<busine?ss4_at_semitwist.com?> wrote:
>> Currently, if you do a commit from a subdirectory within the working
>> copy,
>> only the changes within that subdirectory are selected for the commit.
>
>Which is the behavior pretty much everyone expects. If you select a
>directory, it's assumed that you intended to operate on that
>particular directory.
Which is why I'm asking for it to be an ***OPTION***.
>> I *never* want to do that, but it constantly happens to me by mistake,
>> and
>> since there's no notice that that happened,
>
>Sure there is. It's pretty clear which directory you're working on.
Normally yes, but when I'm juggling a million different concerns (as is
normally the case in any non-trivial software development), it is easy to
***OVERLOOK***.
>> I don't always realize until
>> it's too late (ie the changes have already been replaced by newer
>> changes,
>> and that particular snapshot that I *thought* I committed is lost
>> forever,
>> and that particular revision is effectively corrupted.)
>
>This makes no sense to me. What's "corrupted" and how? It's only your
>working copy and nothing will be replaced that you don't ask for.
The newly committed revision is corrupted. Ie, If I make a modification that
involves changes to four files, I commit only two of those changed files,
and someone checks out the revision I just made, then clearly it's unlikely
to work.
>> I consider this a very serious data loss problem. I need an option to
>> disable that behavior and force all commits to auto-select all the
>> changes
>> in the working copy to be commited, and never just a subset of the
>> changes.
>
>How is your data lost?
How isn't it? I'll explain again: I have file 'foo'. At this point we'll
call it version A. I then make a change and now have B. I do a commit, and
some other stuff gets committes, but 'foo' doesn't and since I expect
commits to just work, I don't notice. So I continue and make another change
and now have C. I then commit 'foo' C (successfully this time), and shut
down for the day. At this point, 'foo' B is clearly gone.
>So you want TSVN to recursively walk UP the directory tree? This is
>potentially a very expensive operation,
Expensive to walk up a directory tree? Not at all. Certainly not compared to
all the other work involved in a typical commit (such as diffing files and
transferring data across a network).
>and can cause some odd
>behavior if you've got externals mixed in there as well.
How so? But regardless, I haven't been using externals, so I could live with
that.
>What you're describing here is asking TSVN to make a very large change
>in its behavior
I'm only asking for it as an *option*.
> due to your own carelessness. Slow down and be more
>careful about what you're doing. You're given plenty of opportunities
>to review what's being committed before it happens.
That is completely uncalled for. Don't be so damn arrogant.
------------------------------------------------------
http://tortoisesvn.tigris.org/ds/viewMessage.do?dsForumId=4061&dsMessageId=2379333
To unsubscribe from this discussion, e-mail: [users-unsubscribe_at_tortoisesvn.tigris.org].
Received on 2009-08-03 06:52:37 CEST