Forgot to add that I absolutely love & agree with this reply. Thanks Johan!
On 08/22/2011 08:48 AM, Johan Corveleyn wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 2:01 AM, Greg Stein <gstein_at_gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sat, Aug 20, 2011 at 19:48, Neels J Hofmeyr <neels_at_elego.de> wrote:
>>> I have taken the occasion to write a comprehensive description of my current
>>> vision for svn:hold.
>> I find the entire concept to be worrisome. All of a sudden, there are
>> files that just don't act right. "Magic" occurs, and only on certain
>> files. This just isn't very discoverable, and I think it will just
>> trip people up. "Huh? Why didn't that commit? ... OH, SUCK."
>> There is just too much mystery occurring with this proposed feature.
> FWIW, I do like this feature (as an svn user and overall CM person in
> my company). I could certainly make good use of this in our
> environment: for project and module files of the IDE, build scripts
> ("Makefile.in" and the like), ...
> I do not want to bother every developer with that (putting them in a
> changelist, ...), but just set it (and draft the template) centrally.
> I only want them committed if someone explicitly decides to change the
> template (--do-not-hold seems fine to me).
> To me the current proposal seems like a relatively clean and standard
> approach. It doesn't appear to be any more magical than other svn:
> props (ignore, keywords, eol-style, ...). Besides, I haven't seen
> other ideas yet on how to implement this useful feature.
> However: please keep it as simple and transparent as possible, at
> least initially. For instance, I'm not interested in holding 'update'
> (I currently see no firm use case for that). AFAICS, the main thing is
> holding 'commit'. Though I realize that other operations may need to
> be adapted as well (status, diff, info, ...), to keep it consistent
> and understandable for the user.
Received on 2011-08-23 01:56:53 CEST