Daniel Becroft <djcbecroft at gmail dot com> Full name Daniel Becroft
<djcbecroft at gmail dot com> Date 2009-08-03 16:00:03 PDT
>Should 'unversioned' files be automatically selected for add as well?
>Missing files be automatically selected for deletion?
No. I'm not sure I see why they would.
>Just out of curiousity, when the files are selected in the commit dialog,
>do
>you double-check each one to ensure the changes are to be committed? Ie
>there are not debug messages, etc that should be removed?
No. I always remove such things even before deciding to commit.
>> How isn't it? I'll explain again: I have file 'foo'. At this point we'll
>> call it version A. I then make a change and now have B. I do a commit,
>> and
>> some other stuff gets committes, but 'foo' doesn't and since I expect
>> commits to just work, I don't notice. So I continue and make another
>> change
>> and now have C. I then commit 'foo' C (successfully this time), and shut
>> down for the day. At this point, 'foo' B is clearly gone.
>>
>
>The intermediate version, 'foo' B is gone, yes. However, the changes
>(unless
>you removed them) will still be in 'foo' B.
>
??? If foo B is gone, then foo B is gone. I'm not sure what you're saying
here.
>Expensive to walk up, no. Expensive to then traverse back down and obtain
>all the changes from all the portential child directories? Most definitely.
But that is still no more expensive than if I had done the commit from the
wc root, which is essentially what I always intend to do anyway.
>If someone accidentally checks-out a working copy into the root of C:\ (for
>example), then the root of the WC will be C:\, and every directory under
>that will probably show up as a unversioned directory. If there's another
>working copy located at C:\files\work, should 'files' should up in the list
>(as it contains WC that cannot be added)?
Of course not. But I don't see how this scenario is relevant anyway?
>That wasn't arrogance. By your own admission, it's a 'mistake' that these
>files are not committed. That's a user mistake, NOT a software mistake.
The very nature of VCSes ultimately boils down to preventing user mistakes.
The scenario I'm talking about is a VCS-related issue that *can* be
prevented by software. The debate is not about classifying the mistake as
originating in user-land or software-land, that's a triviality. The debate
is about whether the proper *solution* lies in user-land or on the software
side. Andy was insisting that problems originating in user-land should be
deliberately ignored by software design. I was saying that such problems
that can reasonably be prevented by software should be prevented by
software.
------------------------------------------------------
http://tortoisesvn.tigris.org/ds/viewMessage.do?dsForumId=4061&dsMessageId=2379947
To unsubscribe from this discussion, e-mail: [users-unsubscribe_at_tortoisesvn.tigris.org].
Received on 2009-08-04 13:03:19 CEST