Paul Lorenz <email@example.com> wrote on 02/03/2006 09:11:22 AM:
> > 2) In plugin.properties, you seemed to add the same literal twice.
> I wasn't sure what the convention was if you're using the same text in
> two different places in the UI. I guess if some time later we want
> different text in those places, we can add another literal, so I'll
> take that one out.
What I was talking about was a place where everything was the same (the
key and the value). Maybe the key was slightly different and I missed it?
> > 3) The Non-SVN Conflicts filter is on by default. It doesn't seem
> > it should be.
> Ok, I'll look at that. Not sure where that gets set.
Can you also separate this patch? If I decide to backport any of these to
the 1.0.x branch I would prefer that they be in separate commits.
> > 4) I am mildly concerned that people will not understand what Delete
> > unmanaged resources means. Technically the item is Added, and will
> > unmanaged as part of the revert. Also, other items that are unmanaged
> > will not be deleted because they would not have shown in the revert
> > dialog. I do not have any great ideas here on how to improve it.
> I was thinking about what files show up in the revert dialog, and
> wondering if we could have unmanaged resources show up there, so that
> they would be deleted if the delete unmanaged resources option were
> set. Is this something you would consider? Or maybe it's different
> enough that it should be it's own operation? It's still an operation
> which does something related to the repository state.
I was starting to think we should change the approach to a separate
option. Leave revert alone, and instead have a new option that bring up
all Unversioned resources. The dialog could have options to Add them, or
delete them. I am not sure what we would call it.
> > 5) Right now, it is just the Revert option where this is implemented,
> > correct? What other places are you planning on using it?
> Where else would be appropriate? Does a Switch normally leave
> unversioned files around? If so, that would be another place to
> consider it.
I guess I was thinking of the Replace with -> Base Revision option. It
isn't that I wanted you to do this in more places, I am still
uncomfortable with the whole idea. The descriptions you were using just
led me to believe you had plans to put this in more places and I was
> I'll try and resend the patches, resynced to trunk and with the
> missing files tonight. But if not then, this weekend sometime.
Thanks. Again, lets try to focus on this missing file option first if
Scanned for SoftLanding Systems, Inc. and SoftLanding Europe Plc by IBM Email Security Management Services powered by MessageLabs.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org
For additional commands, e-mail: email@example.com
Received on Fri Feb 3 15:21:35 2006