On 01/04/2013 04:26 PM, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> C. Michael Pilato wrote on Fri, Jan 04, 2013 at 16:25:07 -0500:
>> On 01/04/2013 03:57 PM, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
>>> Stefan Sperling wrote on Fri, Jan 04, 2013 at 19:31:20 +0100:
>>>> On Fri, Jan 04, 2013 at 01:23:28PM -0500, C. Michael Pilato wrote:
>>>>> Can anyone make an argument for me *not* to reintegrate my branch to trunk
>>>>> for 1.8 release? I need to code up some more regression tests for the --cl
>>>>> "" behaviors, but I don't really want to invest that energy today if I know
>>>>> that dev@ is disinterested in seeing this new functionality in 1.8 anyway.
>>>>
>>>> Please merge it to trunk!
>>>>
>>>> This feature is already mentioned in the 1.8 draft release notes and
>>>> I'm glad to learn that you've fixed it up.
>>>
>>> I hope that's not the only reason you want to merge it --- it'd be
>>> simple to axe it from the release notes.
>>
>> Yeah, I was kinda hoping for a bit more justification myself. Is the trunk
>> behavior what we want to ship/live with? See, I'm having a bit of trouble
>> really remembering the driving use-case here.
>
> svn st -q --cl ""
>
> ?
I suppose. Seems kinda lame, though, since 'svn status -q' always shows you
the non-changelist stuff at the top of its output anyway.
--
C. Michael Pilato <cmpilato_at_collab.net>
CollabNet <> www.collab.net <> Enterprise Cloud Development
Received on 2013-01-04 22:54:55 CET