On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 10:49 PM, Paul Burba <ptburba_at_gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 1:31 PM, Julian Foad <julianfoad_at_btopenworld.com> wrote:
>> Daniel Shahaf wrote:
>>> Julian Foad wrote:
>>>> Daniel Shahaf wrote:
>>>> > Perfect, thanks. I think not-overriding for add/import is fine: for
>>>> > 'import' only the repository files are affected, and for 'add' files
>>>> > matching the pattern can be specified explicitly in the argv targets
>>>> > (and auto-props added can be modified or stripped after 'add' and
>>>> > before 'commit').
>>>> Am I the only one going "Eww!" on reading this?
>>>> We have three ways of specifying ignores, and we have an option that
>>>> disregards them, only in one cammand it disregards all of the ways and
>>>> in two other commands the option only disregards two of the ways. And
>>>> we say "sure, that sounds perfect". It doesn't sound fine to me, it
>>>> sounds horrible.
>>>> What am I missing?
>>> Do 'add' and 'import' already take the '--no-ignore' flag? My answer
>>> was assuming they didn't.
>> They do.
>>> Also Julian you might want to review the semantics of svn:auto-props?
>>> According to the wiki page there is no way to override or ignore those
>>> upon add/import, either - I'm not completely happy with that.
>> Thanks, I'll try to review that too.
> If we ultimately decide to allow svn:global-ignores to be
> disregarded with the --no-ignore option, then I suggest it makes sense
> for 'svn add' and 'svn import' to disregard the svn:auto-props
> property when the --no-auto-props option is used. Anyone disagree?
>  And it certainly looks as if we are going in that direction. I'll
> give this thread a day before making any changes, so all interested
> parties have a chance to weigh in.
I think that svn:global-ignores should work the same as svn:ignore. So
if --no-ignore option disregard svn:ignore then it should disregard
This is also true for svn:auto-props.
/bike-shed note: why property named "svn:global-ignores", not
"svn:global-ignore"? It will be looking more consistent with
Received on 2012-11-06 20:07:42 CET