Re: Feature Request: Option to *always* commit all the changes in the *entire* working copy.

[Thus spake Nick Sabalausky ("NS: ") Yesterday...]

NS: >This is precisely what the "Cancel" button is for: "Hey, where's all the
NS: >other stuff I changed? Oops. Checking in from the wrong spot. Try again..."
NS:
NS: There is absolutely no reason why I should have to babysit TSVN when all I
NS: want to do is "Commit all changes in the entire WC". Which actually leads me
NS: to yet another alternate suggestion that'll most likely just get completely
NS: dismissed: "SVN Commit Entire Working Copy...".

Which Working Copy? What if you have two based in the same spot (I work
this way)? Should it check in both of them?

NS: >Think of it this way: If you're in a very high-level directory and you,
NS: >say, type "rm -r ./somedir". It is not going to warn you that you are
NS: >potentially removing a lot of stuff and/or a lot of potential state. It
NS: >is going to go off and do it and only give an error if it encounters
NS: >something it cannot handle (read-only directory, segmentation fault after
NS: >removing libc.so, etc.). Whose fault is it that you typed in the wrong
NS: >thing at the wrong place?
NS:
NS: "rm" is notorious for having a bad interface, even by Unix standards.

You're dodging my question. Read it again.

                                --*greywolf;

--
------------------------------------------------------
http://tortoisesvn.tigris.org/ds/viewMessage.do?dsForumId=4061&dsMessageId=2380327
To unsubscribe from this discussion, e-mail: [users-unsubscribe_at_tortoisesvn.tigris.org].