Stefan Küng wrote:
> On 03.09.2009 07:20, Jerry wrote:
>>>> 2009/9/2 Jerry<junkyuser_at_sarpeidon.net>:>
>> >> Instead of showing a green checkmark on directories that are excluded,
>> >> how about showing the unknown / ? icon overlay? Maybe a "Show excluded
>> >> directories as unknown" check box
>> .> I've been misled a couple of times seeing the green check thinking that
>> >> everything's checked in, where in reality I just had my>exclude/include
>> >> path set wrong.
>> >?!? AFAIK the 'excluded' setting should suppress all overlays on
>> >folders that match the exclude setting. Are these excluded folders
>> >part of a working copy that is 'included' at a higher level?
>> >Which TSVN version are you using?
>> I'm using 1.6.4, let me set up what I've got.
>> In Icon overlays:
>> All drive types are unchecked.
>> My exclude path was blank
>> My include path was:
>> Show Excluded folders as normal is on;
>> I set these up so TortoiseSVN would not waste CPU and memory on
>> directories that I didn't think were version controlled, but it would
>> indicate to me what directories were version controlled.
>> I had forgotten that I needed to add C:\lib\* to my list. However, when
>> I went into C:\lib\ it showed the green checkmark, indicating it's up to
>> date. However, because it wasn't in the include list, that's why it was
>> showing up to date. In actuality, there were modified files. I didn't
>> see that because it wasn't in the include path. It mislead me to
>> believe i had finished my commit.
>> What I think TortoiseSVN should be doing is indicate to me that the
>> directory is revisioned, but that it doesn't know if it's up to date or
>> When it's not being monitored, I want to know that the directory is not
>> being monitored but is revisioned, not hide it by telling me it's up to
>> date. That's why I think the question mark would be a good solution.
> The problem with using the question mark is that this overlay is the
> first to go if there are not enough overlay handlers available.
> So we can't really use that one.
Then maybe the ignored or modified? I think that would cause less
confusion than the risk of thinking everything was checked in. Ok, so
that could be just me. I was editing non-mergable binary files, so I
could have really put myself up the creek with the green check box,
hence my concern.
Can you have it fall back if an overlay handler is not available? Yes,
this is sounding like a lot more work than I originally envisioned.
To unsubscribe from this discussion, e-mail: [users-unsubscribe_at_tortoisesvn.tigris.org].
Received on 2009-09-04 07:29:13 CEST