[svn.haxx.se] · SVN Dev · SVN Users · SVN Org · TSVN Dev · TSVN Users · Subclipse Dev · Subclipse Users · this month's index

Re: Changed handling of conflict file extensions is a usability regression in some situations

From: Mark Phippard <markphip_at_gmail.com>
Date: 2007-04-26 20:07:12 CEST

On 4/26/07, C. Michael Pilato <cmpilato@collab.net> wrote:
> Mark Phippard wrote:
> > On 4/26/07, C. Michael Pilato <cmpilato@collab.net> wrote:
> >> This division seems somewhat arbitrary to me. The reason folks are
> >> seeing
> >> problems with the feature so far is that now the conflict files are
> >> matching
> >> globs meant for versioned files (*.c, *.java). Globs don't care about
> >> file
> >> contents or line-based merge algorithms.
> >
> > True, but so far the examples provided where this was a problem were
> > an IDE that built .java files automatically and a make script that
> > built .c files automatically. Neither of these type tools would have
> > a problem with an extra .jpg file or .doc file lying around.
> >
> > If this was not a global setting, I would not bring it up. But if I
> > mainly want this feature for Word documents, but I do most of my
> > development in Java, I am kind of stuck. I pretty much have to turn
> > the feature off. If this were a per-project setting I might turn it
> > on for my project/repository where my Word docs are stored and leave
> > it off everywhere else.
> >
> > So my thought was to attempt a compromise setting.
> This feature request, fulfilled by tweaking a single function in
> update_editor.c, is starting to get out of hand.
> I understand the reasoning for a compromise setting, but it's the wrong
> compromise line to draw. A better one might be to make the feature just
> take a list of file extensions you want to preserve. I was just about to
> commit the boolean on/off code change (it's done and tested). I can pretty
> easily do the list-of-extensions-to-preserve thing (small change from where
> my patch already sits).
> But I'm not going to code on this any more until there's some consensus in
> this thread. Okey dokey? :-)

Please do not interpret my suggestions as lack of consensus. I am
just trying to help think through this so we get it right. Your
suggestion of a list of extensions sounds find to me and a lot safer.
I am assuming if the boolean value were on, then the file extension
would have to be in the list? Otherwise it would use current
behavior? That sounds pretty good to me.

Mark Phippard
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Thu Apr 26 20:07:24 2007

This is an archived mail posted to the Subversion Dev mailing list.

This site is subject to the Apache Privacy Policy and the Apache Public Forum Archive Policy.