> On 23/09/2008, at 4:04 AM, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
>> 2008/9/22 Clint Lawrence <clint.lawrence_at_gmail.com>:
>>> I've expanded my original patch a little and now externals and
>>> items are handled correctly. The only major task that still needs
>>> to be
>>> completed is disabling the search for unversioned items when it's
>> Sorry for ignoring this thread until now - it just dawned on me what
>> this thread is discussing.
>> Can I add in my $.02 that I would absolutely not like to see this
>> functionality added by default?
It was certainly my intention to have a way to turn this off. I don't
have any strong thoughts if it's better on or off by default. I will
that one the basic functionality .
On 23/09/2008, at 7:03 AM, Julian Foad wrote:
> On Mon, 2008-09-22 at 22:03 +1000, Clint Lawrence wrote:
>> Updated patches are attached. The change is split into two patches -
>> libsvn_client.txt should be applied first, then client.txt.
>> I've expanded my original patch a little and now externals and
>> items are handled correctly. The only major task that still needs
>> to be
>> completed is disabling the search for unversioned items when it's not
> I am concerned about adding a chunk of code into the commit logic that
> isn't closely aligned to the commit logic's task. In particular, I am
> concerned about adding it into the library.
> In the existing commit message template, to generate the list of items
> to be committed, we know that the commit logic is generating that list
> anyway. If we wanted the high-level client to generate that list
> separately by using functions like "status", it would be duplicating
> code and it might not be easy to ensure it was exactly right.
> it makes sense for the commit logic to pass its list back to the
> high-level client code.
> When we want to display unversioned items in the message, I'm not sure
> any of this argument applies. Is there a single definition of
> "unversioned items" from the commit logic's point of view? I don't
> so. It is a concept of the user-interface presentation logic of "svn
> status" and the preferences that control it (global-ignores, etc.).
> Wouldn't it make sense for us to add this feature in the user
> (client) code where it logically belongs? Is there a benefit to
> embedding it in the commit logic in the library? (There's probably at
> least a small speed advantage, but a large one?)
I was conscience of messing with the commit logic at first, but it felt
like the path of least resistance at the time. This is my first crack
at contributing here, so if I've taken the wrong path I'm happy try
When I first looked at this, I was actually a little surprised that
and status didn't share the same code to recurse through the wc. So I
(naively?) hoping that the commit logic would more or less have
that information and was just throwing it away while it built the
items to commit. I suppose thinking that shaped my approach to the
The only other advantage I can think of for putting it in the
that it becomes available to other users of the API. I don't think
a position to judge if that would be useful or not
> Taking a step back, isn't the output of "svn status" what we want to
> see? I'm not clear why we would want a special subset of it. Let me
> some examples of what I mean:
> * Do we want to ignore items in the global-ignores and the local
> svn:ignore list? Undoubtedly. Then we perhaps should support a
> "--no-ignores" switch like "svn status" does. I can easily say, "No we
> shouldn't - that's going too far," but where is the rationale behind
> that decision?
From a user interface point of view I'm not sure it would make sense
to have a
"--no-ignores" switch for "svn commit". I would read that to mean it
effected what items would be committed. Of course the general point
is valid and I'm not sure I have a response to that at the moment.
> * Where should we look for unversioned items? The present patch,
> my quick glance, looks in each directory scanned for committables, and
> also looks at the immediate siblings of each specified target. That's
> fine for one user, but the next user wants to also see "cousins" like
> "www/jpegs/unversioned.jpg" when committing "www/gifs/new.gif" as a
> named target.
Correct. That is where it looks at the moment. My inclination was to
out as simple as possible and provide something that helps in most
is after all, just a reminder. How far should you go to protect
> * If we look for unversioned items because the user might have
> forgotten to add them, why do we not also look for the opposite: items
> that are "missing" because the user deleted or moved them without
> telling Subversion?
Good idea. For myself, I'm usually forgetting to add something, but the
symmetry is appealing.
Some more constructive feedback on which direction to add would be very
helpful for me at this point, if anyone has some to offer.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe_at_subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help_at_subversion.tigris.org
Received on 2008-09-23 14:48:12 CEST