Hello Stefan,
so I am nearly done with the functionality For SubWCRev. The only things is the COM interface, where I have to bring the "-E" parameter to the "GetWCInfo" function.
One possiblity would be to add another "bool" variable, or change it to "short" (0: Off, 1: "-e", 2: "-E") or use an enum. What should I use, I think "short" would stay compatible with old versions?
Also I added the "HasMixedRevisions" to the COM interface. That is for the case, when you have an fixed external, which was manually set to HEAD revision. This should lead to an mixed revision error, also when MinRev & MaxRev are equal the head revision.
Could you please check, if I have to do some other things for this?
Jan
> > > Task 1 “tags”:
> > SubWCRev does not use MFC at all. If you want to add something there,
> > you'd have to do it without it.
> >
> > But instead of passing another command line switch, just read the
> > registry values.
> Ok, no problem. Just recognize, that the registry class is also working without MFC...
>
> > > Task 2 “external use all explicit revisions”
> > >
> > > The second idea is to have another keyword
> > > “$WCEXTEXPREV?TText:FText$”, which recognize, if all used externals
> > > uses an explicit revision. This can be very helpful, to recognize, if
> > > there is an svn::externals, which uses the head revision instead of
> > > an explicit revision.
> >
> > I suggest using $WCEXTISTAGGED or something like that. Not sure what
> > EXPREV would even mean.
> Then I would recommend $WCEXTISFIXED. (The other shortcut was for EXPlicit REVision)
Change again to $WCEXTALLFIXED.
>
> >
> > > Task 3 “fixed externals lead not to mixed revisions”
> > >
> > > My last idea, would be to add a new command line switch “-E”, which
> > > works nearly in the same way as the current “-e” command line switch.
> > > The only problem with the current implementation is, that when an
> > > explicit revision for an external is used, we always get a mixed
> > > revision result. My idea would be, to ignore the externals with
> > > explicit revision, when the revision range inside of them is only the
> > > given explicit revision in the properties. So they would not lead to
> > > a smaller MinRev and so no mixed update revisions.
> >
> > Seems ok.
> >
> > > That’s my ideas and I would like to provide a patch for them. So
> > > please some feedback for my ideas!
> >
> > If you want to provide a patch for this, don't forget to include methods
> > to get the same values for SubWCRevCOM.
> I will have a look inside this.
>
>
> Thanks for your comments!
>
> Jan
------------------------------------------------------
http://tortoisesvn.tigris.org/ds/viewMessage.do?dsForumId=4061&dsMessageId=3010595
To unsubscribe from this discussion, e-mail: [users-unsubscribe_at_tortoisesvn.tigris.org].
Received on 2012-09-27 07:45:32 CEST