On Fri, Nov 03, 2006 at 02:28:43PM -0500, Rohit_Singh@logitech.com wrote:
> IMHO, outside of Merge Tracking and Improved Rename Support, perhaps the
> most glaring need of Subversion (from a practical standpoint, of course) is
> the ability to "cloak" or "de-cloak" a folder. For those of you not
> familiar with Visual Source Safe, "cloaking" is a server side operation
> that allows the repository to exclusively filter "Get Latest" (a.k.a.,
> "Update") operations.
>
> So, for example, if I map the following directories:
>
> $/
> Foo/
> Bar/
> Uh/
>
> to the following working copy:
>
>
> D:\
> Foo\
> Bar\
> Uh\
>
> any "Get Latest" (a.k.a. "Update") on the D:\ drive would recursively
> update the contents of the “Foo”, “Bar”, and “Uh” folders recursively.
> However, if we proceeded to "cloak" the “Bar” folder, a "Get Latest" on the
> D:\ drive would update the “Foo” and “Uh” folders recursively, but would
> effectively ignore the “Bar” folder and all of the children of the “Bar”
> folder. In order to update the contents of the “Bar” folder, we would have
> to "Get Latest" on the “Bar” folder.
>
> From a use-case standpoint, I envision Cloaks to be a
> Checkout/Update/Commit filter. While in VSS, cloak information was a
> function of the user and stored on the repository, I think the cloak
> information should be applied only to the working copy. In fact, I don't
> think the repository should even have direct knowledge of cloaked elements.
>
Is anybody familiar with the cloaking functionality described and
sticky tags under cvs and can compare them. At least on first read
this reminded me of the sticky tags behavior.
--
-- rouilj
John Rouillard
System Administrator
Renesys Corporation
603-643-9300 x 111
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Fri Nov 3 21:00:31 2006