On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 6:45 PM, Mark Phippard <markphip_at_gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 6:22 PM, jcompagner <jcompagner_at_gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, Feb 9, 2009 at 17:44, Mark Phippard <markphip_at_gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Mon, Feb 9, 2009 at 11:41 AM, jcompagner <jcompagner_at_gmail.com> wrote:
>>> > ahh ok
>>> > Refresh revision info doesnt really say to me that it will get merge
>>> > information. What does it exactly refresh besides merge? Also the
>>> > commit
>>> > comment and so on (because most stuff is static/fixed right?)
>>> We had already added this option because it is possible for things
>>> like the comment to have been edited and we are working exclusively
>>> off the local cache for this information. So we updated the option to
>>> also retrieve the merge information at the same time.
> Thanks for the patch you submitted. We are currently working on the
> SVN 1.6 tree conflicts feature in the tree-conflicts branch, but we'll
> review and start committing them soon.
>> the more i think about it and look how this behavior works (if i refresh
>> file X and i see the right line
>> and then i go to file Y that was also in that merge i see there the line
>> then i think for us if i just could say where to get the merge info from it
>> would be just 2 queries per project and
>> you had it for all the files in 1 project that i want.
>> For example we have
>> /trunk/j2db and /branch/4x/j2db
>> and those 2 folders contain all the merge properties for every file they
>> So wouldnt it just be enough to just query the merge properties for those 2
>> locations and then for every file i open thats inside that project you know
>> enough info?
> It sounds like you are asking for the cache to just build this
> information. All I can say right now, is that I cannot see doing
> that. I do not even think it'd make sense to make it a preference.
> There are just too many cases where it winds up running "forever".
Actually, if you and some others were to say that running svn log -g
on the root of their repository is not too bad for them I could see
allowing a preference for this. It would be important for a warning
dialog to be popped up when/if someone tried to turn it on though.
Obviously if someone just sees a checkbox that says "Include merge
information on revision graph" they are going to check it. We'd need
to do our best to let them know how bad a choice that can be.
To unsubscribe from this discussion, e-mail: [dev-unsubscribe_at_subclipse.tigris.org].
Received on 2009-02-11 14:50:26 CET