Brock Janiczak <email@example.com> wrote on 08/03/2005 05:44:07 AM:
> I recently had the same thought (but i hadn't gotten around to actually
> it). The replace with base action should use the revert functionality,
> not display the revert dialog. If you go into the replace menu you
> prepared for everything to get replaced (unlike the revert action).
> If no one objects, i will add this function on the weekend.
I would not say that I am against this change, I am just not in favor of
it in general.
I think our goal should be to make a good Subversion client, not emulate
every last feature of the CVS client. I think we should use Subversion
terminology in all areas so that it is clear what Subversion commands are
being run. In the long run, I think this works in our favor as it makes
the nice market of Subversion books and other materials relevant to what
we are doing.
In general I also do not think it is a good UI idea to offer multiple
paths to the same functionality. In the long run it is just confusing.
Since we have the other Replace with options I suppose it makes sense to
add this one too. I kind of think that it should to the exact same thing
as Revert, including the dialog. If we do not do this, then the option is
going to undo Deletes, Moves and Copies, and I am not sure that would be
the expected behavior. By presenting the dialog we are at least putting
all of this in front of the user.
Scanned for SoftLanding Systems, Inc. by IBM Email Security Management Services powered by MessageLabs.
Received on Thu Aug 4 00:45:23 2005