Re: Feature request: Keyword $Rev$ with a twist

On Thu, Aug 01, 2002 at 07:48:08AM -0700, Julian Fitzell wrote:

[ ... ]
> I usually end up updating to the next tagged revision eventually.
> Sometimes I might be making local changes as well, some times not.

This is _exactly_ the answer I expected! This means that your mixed WC
is only a temporary state and you get rid of it when you are done
instead of starting to commit/merge in this state.

Given that it is only a temporary state and it is used seldom I repeat
my claim: I don't believe that those use-cases are so frequent that it
is worth to burden the day-by-day use.

> I dunno, I can't I do it a *lot* but it's nice to be able to do and I
> would miss it coming from CVS.

OK, it is nice to _be_ _able_ to do such things. And I am the last one
to completely ban the possibility of mix-revs. My point is just that
the mix-rev-concept should not be _forced_ on the day-by-day use. The
problem is that the current behavior is _forcing_ you to deal with
mix-revs, no matter whether you want them or not.

But hey, let us stop this discussion at this point and start it over
when 1.0 is out.

-- 
-- Josef Wolf -- jw@raven.inka.de --
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org