Paul Lorenz <plorenz@gmail.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
like
> > 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
become
> > 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
wondering where.
> 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
possible.
Mark
_____________________________________________________________________________
Scanned for SoftLanding Systems, Inc. and SoftLanding Europe Plc by IBM Email Security Management Services powered by MessageLabs.
_____________________________________________________________________________
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subclipse.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subclipse.tigris.org
Received on Fri Feb 3 15:21:35 2006