Auke Jilderda wrote:
> 2008/6/26 Stefan Küng <tortoisesvn_at_gmail.com>:
>> We designed the branch/tag dialog to be used exclusively for url targets.
>> For WC->WC copies, we have the right-drag feature which is *much* better
>> suited for that:
>> I think you should not tell your customers to use the branch/tag dialog for
>> WC->WC copies at all. Even though it *can* be used for that too, we don't
>> recommend it.
>> If you still think the dialog needs to be redesigned, can you maybe provide
>> some mockup to show us what you think it should look like?
> that makes sense, thanks. Given that approach, I would still suggest to
> redesign it but slightly different, keeping in mind your explanation:
> First, I would still suggest to group the source URL and revision
> together as they, together, identify what the user intends to copy.
> Separating source from destination makes the dialog more clear and
> Second, the "working copy" option is a bit confusing. It is needed to
> enable tagging and branching from a mixed revision state but can be
> (ab)used to copy from working copy (including local, uncommitted
> changes) to server. Perhaps it would help to rename "working copy" to
> "mixed revisions" and warn if there are local, uncommitted changes in
> the working copy?
The "working copy" radio button should be exclusively used to copy from
working copy including local uncommitted changes.
For what you consider "working copy" (i.e., branching from the revision
where the working copy is on), the branch/tag dialog fills in the
"revision" box automatically after scanning the whole working copy for
that specific revision. And if there are local modifications, a warning
balloon is shown on the "revision" box telling the user exactly that.
oo // \\ "De Chelonian Mobile"
(_,\/ \_/ \ TortoiseSVN
\ \_/_\_/> The coolest Interface to (Sub)Version Control
/_/ \_\ http://tortoisesvn.net
Received on 2008-06-26 21:12:25 CEST