[svn.haxx.se] · SVN Dev · SVN Users · SVN Org · TSVN Dev · TSVN Users · Subclipse Dev · Subclipse Users · this month's index

Re: Feature Request: Dual-Commit

From: BRM <bm_witness_at_yahoo.com>
Date: 2005-12-20 22:22:13 CET

--- Stefan Küng <tortoisesvn@gmail.com> wrote:
> Flanakin Michael C Ctr HQ OSSG/OMR wrote:
> > Occasionally, when I'm working on a fix in a
> branch, I want to commit
> > that fix to both the branch and the trunk.
> Currently, I have to commit
> > to branch, switch to trunk, merge the two, commit
> the trunk, and switch
> > back to the branch. That's a lot of work just to
> commit what I've got to
> > two places. Granted, this only happens when I know
> that both files are
> > the same. Actually, in most of my cases, I tend to
> be in the trunk when
> > I'm fixing it and commit just that change to the
> trunk and branch.
> >
> > I know the prospective risk that is being taken is
> that one might commit
> > more than the desired change; but that can happen
> any number of ways if
> > someone's not paying attention, so I don't think
> that's a very good
> > argument against this capability.
> >
> > Anyway, what're the chances of adding something
> like this to TSvn? I
> > know there's nothing that Svn has like this, but
> it can be mocked up
> > pretty easily. For instance, have a checkbox and
> textbox to specify
> > whether to do a dual-commit as well as a secondary
> URL. Behind the
> > scenes, there are simply two commits that take
> place (actually, I may be
> > wrong; you may have to complete the previously
> mentioned process). There
> > could be a few other things added later to help
> resolve issues that may
> > come up from this (i.e. compare and maybe only
> allow dual-commits for
> > files of the same repository version).
> Comments like "can be mocked up pretty easily"
> always make me feel bad.
> If it is that easy, why do you request the feature
> and don't implement
> it yourself and send a patch?
> That said: you haven't really thought about how
> Subversion works. What
> you're requesting isn't possible.
> You want to commit to a branch for which you don't
> have a working copy
> for. Without a working copy, Subversion can't know
> if you're up-to-date
> with the repository. So a commit is not possible.
> Your request would be
> "overwrite files in the repository without me
> knowing what exactly I'm
> overwriting" - Subversion doesn't do that. Neither
> officially nor with
> tricks or cheating - it's not possible.

Well...I'm not advocating the issue - I'm not sure
what I think about it myself - and I don't know
whether what I'm about to propose would go into TSVN
or SVN...but...

What about setting up TSVN/SVN to have multiple
working copies for each 'branch' that the user wants
to be able to commit against. For example, but default
it would only have one setup using the standard '.svn'
directory, which would always be the master branch.
However, if the user enabled this "feature" then they
could have '.svn.0' (just another name for '.svn') and
then '.svn.0' (where X > 0) for all the other
branches. This would allow (at the cost of the user's
diskspace) the user to have the extra working copies
that could be checked against, and the standard rules
would apply to each before committing would be allowed
(update, merge, commit).

Just a thought on the subject. But like I said, I'm
not sure if it would be TSVN territory or SVN
territory as I don't know where the line is between
the two (since I don't program them, just use 'em).


To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@tortoisesvn.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tortoisesvn.tigris.org
Received on Sun Dec 25 01:22:44 2005

This is an archived mail posted to the TortoiseSVN Dev mailing list.

This site is subject to the Apache Privacy Policy and the Apache Public Forum Archive Policy.