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

Re: Regarding issue #3348 ("Provide syntax which means 'include all files *not* in a changelist'")

From: Stefan Sperling <stsp_at_apache.org>
Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2013 22:54:47 +0100

On Fri, Jan 04, 2013 at 04:25:07PM -0500, C. Michael Pilato wrote:
> 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.

Well, I was under the impression that there already was consensus
that this was a good idea. You mentioned this feature had been discussed
back in 2011, and it has existed on trunk for ages. So I didn't see any
reason to question it.

But if you're unsure about the design/implementation or the driving
use cases, then yes, we should discuss these concerns. Could you be
more specific about what exactly your concerns are?
Received on 2013-01-04 22:55:30 CET

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.