Thanks Mark, I think that sounds like a good plan.
I actually cleaned things up as good as they're gonna get now, I
believe. I went over the patch
and it appears it's only adding the stuff I wanted. Had to revert a
couple of files becuase
I had deleted them or copied over them or some such so the SVN Diff
wanted to add the whole
file. Now it's just the added lines.
It's funny it was so much work to add such a little bit. I mean, looking
at the patch, I'm like, wow,
that's not much code. I love eclipse. Sweeeeeet.
At any rate, do we want a SVN menu, akin to CVS? That's how it's set up
for now. I actually
just used already defined localized strings (if that's what the
%CommitAction.label type stuff is).
Really it wasn't too hard. The only things I would like to get checked
pretty good are the two
places I added null-checks. TeamActions and SynchronizeAction. It works
like CVS as it
is, I think, but talking with other users I wonder if it's "expected" or
not. Eh. And I'm not sure
if grabbing the plugin's active getSite() in SynchronizeAction is
kosher. Seems to work...*shrug*
At any rate, I think it's about as good as it'll get... I'll double
check and then post the patch later
on. I like the idea of working with just the three for starters.
Has anyone played with the 3.2 "new" "experimental" key-binding
interface? I just glanced at it
so I don't know what ti's for, but if they've come up with a new way of
binding... eh, we still
gotta be able to use it with 3.1 for a while I'd guess, so it don't matter.
For curiousity's sake, did the synchronize keybinding (under keys>team)
Mark Phippard wrote:
>First, thanks for working on this. There have obviously been a number of
>people that have expressed an interest in the feature so it is good to have
>someone working on it.
>The way you have approached this sounds correct to me. I would expect the
>existing actions to be used if possible, so adding an interface to them
>sounds like the right approach. I also do not see any problems with
>posting a binary version for people to play with. That is entirely up tp
>My recommendation would be to focus on the three actions you have
>implemented. Get your patch as cleaned up as possible. I know you have
>been working on this for a long time, so spend a while looking carefully at
>the patch itself and make sure it is as clean as possible (doesn't contain
>any discarded experiments) etc.. Make sure you have localized any new
>strings you have added etc...
>When you have it ready, add a PATCH issue to our issue tracker and then
>attach the patch. Try to add some kind of explanation of what you did, so
>we know how to evaluate the patch and what to write in the eventual commit
>Once we get this patch committed into the code base, then you can look into
>adding support for additional actions at your own discretion.
>Scanned for SoftLanding Systems, Inc. and SoftLanding Europe Plc by IBM Email Security Management Services powered by MessageLabs.
>To unsubscribe, e-mail: email@example.com
>For additional commands, e-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org
Received on Sun Nov 6 09:29:49 2005