> Simon Large wrote:
>> 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.
Did I say either of the other buttons should be disabled? The consistent
behaviour I was looking for was that whichever show-log button you
click, and regardless of the state of the "Use 'From:' URL" checkbox, if
you select a revision number then that revision number gets put in the
associated box. No 'will it or won't it subtract 1', no 'will it change
another box as well'. The extra button I mentioned has the different
behaviour of changing _two_ rev-number boxes, and doing the -1 on the
start rev. For that reason it should have a different name like 'Select
>> 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)
No I wasn't, well not just now anyway. At the moment I am referring to
consistency _within_ the merge dialog. We have 3 show log buttons; one
of those always has the same behaviour (WC) and the other two have
behaviour which depends on the 'same URL' checkbox.
> 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!
I don't have a problem with that. I think it's a good tool. I mentioned
that it only works if you select exactly 1 revision. If you were ever to
change it so that it works over a range of revisions, then it could
become inconsistent with unified diff, but the way it is at the moment
is entirely consistent.
>> 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?
Well 1 button doesn't make a lot of clutter.
> 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.
Yes, there is still a way to do anything you want. And people will get
used to it.
Johan Appelgren wrote:
> I've thought of it that way [in terms of diffs] ever
> since reading about the merge command in the subversion book. So I'm
> actually quite confused by this entire X-1 issue since I never thought
> of revisions as changesets.
For those used to thinking of a diff, they go to select the start
revision and ... huh? I'm sure I selected r123. Why has it filled in
On 19th January Stefan wrote:
> You also have to understand that what you might think of being more
> user friendly or more clear isn't always that clear to people who
> understand the merging stuff. I for example don't want to have two
> dialogs for two different merge scenarios (URL1/URL2 and URL1 with
> range). That would confuse me a lot.
We seem to have swapped positions since then! I know this isn't two
dialogs, but it is using 1 dialog in 2 different ways.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: email@example.com
For additional commands, e-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org
Received on Thu Jan 27 15:54:46 2005