Mark Phippard wrote:
> I have been thinking more about the recent changes to drop the Added
> overlay. I wonder if it is really necessary to do this? I agree
> completely that using Modified as a substitute works, but using both
> works better. It seems to me that the only reason to dump this
> overlay, and indeed to not add new ones such as one showing that
> a Lock is held, is to be a "good citizen".
> We know that Windows has a limit, so we
> will try not to be wasteful in using the overlays so as not to effect
> other apps. I suppose this is admirable, but is it really necessary?
> For example, I do not use TCVS or any other products that use
> overlays, why should I lose these features which are helpful?
Just because TCVS is greedy, doesn't mean we should be as well ;-)
It would be good if we could find a way of letting the user decide how
many icons got installed, although that sounds non-trivial.
> Couldn't we do something like assign a GUID to these overlays that
> would make them very low priority, so as not to steal slots from
> other apps, and then supplement that with code that detects when
> they will not be used and switches to a substitute, such as the
> Modified overlay? It looks like this was recently done anyway,
> why not just take it to the next level and use more overlays when
A while back, Stefan changed the GUIDs to give us higher priority than
TCVS which does seem to be rather profligate with its overlay use.
Unfortunately it didn't have any effect, and I still lose overlays to
TCVS. If we cannot get a common overlay set with TCVS, maybe we can work
out some other way of co-operating so that the user decides for each
product how many overlays get installed, and which ones get priority.
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 Mon Apr 18 18:04:25 2005