Simon Large wrote:
> Well you're both right. There is a better way to back out the changes
> via show log, but it only works when 1 revision is selected. To back out
> multiple revisions, the only option is to use merge with the order of
> revisions reversed.
> I like the idea of being able to select revisions in this way, but (did
> I mention this before - too many times) inconsistency could cause us
> problems. For the WC show log always, and for the other two in
> 'different URL' mode, this button sets the 1 rev you select. And in
> 'same URL' mode, the 'show log' button has a different behaviour.
Sure it has. The behaviour is consistent with the state of the "use
'From' URL" checkbox. I mean there's no need to provide yet another
button which then would lead to one of the two buttons being disabled
depending on the checkbox.
> IMHO the behaviour should revert to being consistent. If we want this
But we are consistent. You were referring to the "revert changes in this
revision" menu in the log dialog and that this does the (N-1) merge
automatically. But that has nothing to do with being inconsistent! When
you do a merge, you _always_ have to specify (N-1). A user doesn't even
know that the "revert changes..." command in the log dialog does a
merge! The command does what it's supposed to do - how that's done
internally is hidden to the user, a merge is never even mentioned!
> method of setting a range, and I do think it's a good method, then it
> needs a separate button with a different title. You could put it in the
> 'To:' groupbox after the 'Use same URL' checkbox. These show log dialogs
> would all benefit from a small comment area telling you what you should
> select (1 revision or a range), and what will be changed in the merge
> dialog when you do that. And maybe a reminder of which button you
> pressed to get it, because they all look identical.
That would clutter the UI a lot. And why do you wanna do this? I mean if
you click "Show Log" in the merge dialog, the log dialog shows up.
There, you *can* select a revision or a revision range, but you don't
have to. If you don't select anything, then the merge dialog won't
change any of the revision fields. But if you select either a single
revision or a range, it will automatically fill in the revisions with
the (N-1) taken into account.
> It does add one more thing to the UI, but the people who hate the (N-1)
> will be happy, and the people who always thought (N-1) was right will be
> Or is that just another step towards the GUI Hall of Shame?
Maybe we're already nominated there? ;)
Seriously, I don't quite get the problem here...
> /me waiting for rocket attack from Stefan
I don't have rockets. And throwing stones wouldn't help either, because
I 'throw like a girl' (as people tell me) and I'd never hit you ;)
oo // \\ "De Chelonian Mobile"
(_,\/ \_/ \ TortoiseSVN
\ \_/_\_/> The coolest Interface to (Sub)Version Control
/_/ \_\ http://tortoisesvn.tigris.org
To unsubscribe, e-mail: email@example.com
For additional commands, e-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org
Received on Thu Jan 27 13:20:35 2005