Hi everyone,
I am about to post a few messages on topics that are a bit beyond the
current design considerations. I know that we DEFINATELY want to get
simple stuff working before we get into this. I am posting this now
just to make sure that it is not forgotten and to make sure that we
don't make too many decisions not that make future implementation of
these portential features imposible. I don't think that will be a
problem for these features.
------
Jon Steven recently pointed out cvsIndent, a set of scripts to invoke
gnu indent on code checked into cvs, but he identified the problem
that code i nthe repository would not exactly match that which was
checked out.
http://ece.uwaterloo.ca/~kapilch/
Jason Robbins wrote:
>> Could we periodically check out the code, format it, and check it back
>> in?
Danel L. Rall wrote:
>The only problem here is that your local source tree is almost certainly
>going to contain merge conflicts. I'd be willing to do that anyways.
Now Jason Robbins again:
Yeah. Maybe rather than do it periodically, it should be done after
changes are checked in. That way, the formatting changes are done to
files that would cause a merge conflict with other developers anyway.
I would also love to see subversion have a better way to keep track of
who is editing which files. That way you could plan/schedule the
reformating for a time when no one is actively doing an edit on that
particular subtree. If someone has indicated that they are in the
process of an change for a very long time, you could go ahead and do
the other transaction (e.g., reformating) but you would at least be
able to notify the long-transaction developers that they should do an
update before things diverge too much. This ability would be useful
for more than just reformatiing, it would provide "foreknowledge" of
pending merge conflicts thoughout the development process and it would
give active developers a good feel for the level of activity in their
section of the tree.
Sorry if I am repeating what I suggested some time agin, but it would
be great if there was a background process on the client side that
check which files were modified and then uploaded that information to
the server (with the developer's consent). This would be an automated
replacement for the 'cvs edit' command.
jason!
======================================================================
Jason Robbins, Ph.D. Collab.Net is hiring open source developers!
Senior Software Engineer http://www.collab.net/jobs
======================================================================
Received on Sat Oct 21 14:36:04 2006