Stefan Küng wrote:
> David Balažic wrote:
> > Stefan Küng wrote:
> >
> >> David Balažic wrote:
> >>> Stefan Küng wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> David Balažic wrote:
> >>>>> Stefan Küng wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> David Balažic wrote:
> >>>>>>> Stefan Küng wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> David Balažic wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> TortoiseSVN 1.5.9.15518 32-bit
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> In the "check for Modifications" windows, an remotely
> >>>>>> modified file
> >>>>>>>>> does not disappear from the list, after calling
> Update on it.
> >>>>>>>> Hit F5 to refresh the view.
> >>>>>>> No, that removes all remote changes. Then I have to click
> >>>>>> again "Check repository" to get them back.
> >>>>>>> I also noticed now, that localy changed files also do not
> >>>>>> disappear from the list after bein commited.
> >>>>>>> I vaguelly remember that they did so in previous versions...
> >>>>>> Nope, that never worked that way.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Because: how would the CfM dialog even know that an
> >>>>>> update/commit/whatever was successful? That is done in a
> >>>>>> separate thread.
> >>>>> And communication between threads will be invented only
> >>>> next year ;-)
> >>>>> I know this is not 5 minutes of work... I program myself.
> >>>> After you update a folder or a file, what status does it have
> >>>> (assuming the update was successful)?
> >>> "up-to-date" (that is : no remote changes)
> >> Nope. Well, the *remote* status would be 'normal', yes.
> But what would
> >> the local text and property status be? Could be 'normal', could be
> >> 'conflicted', could be 'modified', could be ...
> >
> > Yes. If the user would modify it the same time he is updating it.
> > Which is done very rarely.
>
> Instead of trying to prove my arguments wrong, please do all of us a
> favor and *think* first about what I wrote.
> Your argument is completely wrong, and if you ever had a
> conflict after
> an update you would know it (and from your other mails I get that you
> already *have* had a conflict after an update).
The todays mail ? It is not a conflict after update.
> > Afterall why are reverted files removed from the list ?
>
> Didn't I just tell you that in my very first answer? If you can't
> remember what I wrote half an hour ago, then at least re-read
> the mails
> again.
>
> > The code is following two logics here, without any
> explanation, why is one good
> > in one case, and the other in other case.
>
> I gave you an explanation why.
Yes. You said it is one thread vs two threads.
Which does not answer the core question:
- why is once the status updated (even if it could be wrong) and once not
Regards,
David
------------------------------------------------------
http://tortoisesvn.tigris.org/ds/viewMessage.do?dsForumId=4061&dsMessageId=1277699
To unsubscribe from this discussion, e-mail: [users-unsubscribe_at_tortoisesvn.tigris.org].
Received on 2009-03-06 16:13:38 CET