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

Re: Re: Merge dialog

From: Kari Granö <kari.grano_at_elisanet.fi>
Date: 2007-10-19 11:02:23 CEST

On 2007-10-19, Stefan Küng <tortoisesvn_at_gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 2007-10-19, Simon Large <simon.tortoisesvn_at_googlemail.com> wrote:
>> Page 1 should include 2 radio buttons:
> That's what I implemented yesterday. I just hope people can understand
> the difference between a revrange merge and a tree merge.

Well, tree merge is hard to comprehend, no matter what :-)

>> Page 2 is for selection of the URL(s) and revisions. How it looks
>> depends on which option you selected.
>> 2a. Merge a range of revisions:
>> [ Combo box for the From: URL ]
>> [ Edit box for the revisions to merge ]
>> [ Show log button for URL ]
>> [ Show log button for WC ]
> I never really understood the need for the "show log for wc" button.
> Is this really necessary?

Maybe to check whether some revision has been merged to WC? With merge
tracking, that should become unnecessary.

>> [ ] Checkbox for auto merge
> I thought of keeping the auto merge as a separate context menu entry
> and not integrate it into the merge wizard. After all, the auto merge
> should be fast, which a wizard is by definition *not*.
> And since the auto merge should only be used by those who know what
> they're doing, I thought of moving that context menu entry to the
> 'shift-right-click' part of the menu.

The reason I suggested 'auto merge' on page 1 was that it does not need any
revision range inputs. If you place it as a checkbox on page 2, it
effectively needs to disable all other revision selection controls there.

In my opinion, there is also some value in having a single merge command. A
separate 'auto merge' adds yet another entry to the crowded context menu.
Besides, if you want to make it fast, just place it one page 1 and provide a
'finish' button right there; then the operation requires two user actions.

The name 'auto merge' is a bit unintuitive to me. Am I correct to assume
that it actually finds the copyfrom source of the WC and merges with it? If
so, I think that 'merge all changes from branch origin' would be more

>> [ ] Checkbox for reverse merge ???
> Not sure about that one yet. Maybe this could be done by the user
> specifying the revision range in reverse?

Agreed. However, this is sort of subtle, so maybe the UI should indicate
with e.g. an icon that the merge will be backwards?


To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@tortoisesvn.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tortoisesvn.tigris.org
Received on Fri Oct 19 11:12:56 2007

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.