cmpilato@collab.net wrote:
> "Max Bowsher" <maxb@ukf.net> writes:
>
>> To clarify, I'm not asking someone to actually do the change, I'm just
>> trying to find out whether I should bother sending a patch, and if so,
which
>> option letter people would prefer.
>
> To send a patch without first suffering the obligatory weeks-long
> bikeshed discussion on what precious letter of the alphabet to
> sacrifice for your short option needs would be ... well, it'd be just
> darned unfair. :-)
I knew the discussion was inevitable! So, continuing...
> Seriously, IMO, -i doesn't map well to a *no* ignores option for me.
Personally I think of it as "ignore ignores" :-)
Anyway, -n would probably be the next most logical letter, but it could
quite easily be in great demand for just about every --no-foo or --non-foo
option.
However, I could be happy with any letter which gets this change accepted.
> Do you do this operation frequently enough to justify just setting
> your .subversion/config global_ignores config option to the empty
> string?
This wouldn't work for me - my primary use of --no-ignore is to override
existing svn:ignore properties, in order to dump a list of files to delete
to return a tree to an as-checked-out condition.
>> Max Bowsher wrote:
>>> I find myself typing --no-ignore far more frequently than other long
>>> options.
>>>
>>> Would it be acceptable to add a short option for this?
>>>
>>> I guess -i would be the most likely candidate.
Max.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Sun Jun 15 11:44:02 2003