[svk-devel] [PATCH] Verbose commits (includes ? files in commit log)

[Ruslan Zakirov]

Vote for 4# or empty line as separator

Vote against mixing two lists together especially if files are listed,
for example user can have a dir that is not added with 100 files.

Vote for default behavior.

On 6/6/07, Sartak <sartak at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 6/5/07, Chia-Liang Kao <clkao at clkao.org> wrote:
> > On 05/06/07, David Glasser <glasser at mit.edu> wrote:
> > > On 6/5/07, Sartak <sartak at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > I just finished writing a new option for svk commit, verbose, which
> > > > will include ? files (aka unversioned files) in the commit log. It
> > > > also has tests.
> > > >
> > > > The commit handler totally ignores these ? files. Maybe in the future
> > > > I'll try making it so if you manually change the ? to A, it'll
> > > > transparently do an svk add for that file. We'll see!
> > >
> > > Interesting feature!
> > >
> > > I'm not sure verbose is the most natural name though, since that might
> > > go for more traditional "extra output" later if we come up with a
> > > use... how about --show-ignores or something?  (One of these days
> > > somebody will write the "default flags for svk commands" feature... I
> > > think there was a patch for this a while back?)
> >
> > I think perhaps this can even be the default behaviour, and also it's
> > arguably backward compatible.  What do people think?
>
> Here are my thoughts (which you, cl, already know, but for the sake of
> everyone else):
>
> Originally I had the commit buffer look like this:
>
> === Targets to commit (you may delete items from it) ===
> M   /home/sartak/svk/playground/mastermind.pl
>
> === Unversioned files ===
> ?   aaa
>
> but that turned out to be a little too difficult to handle with the
> current code. It was also suggested that they should just be mixed in
> with the actual commit targets, which I thought would be too confusing
> for people who had just upgraded (since the header does say "Targets
> to commit".. "if I don't remove this ? aaa" will it be added and
> committed?"). So I compromised by mixing them in only if the user
> specifically requested it, since presumably they know what they're
> doing. :)
>
> Another possibility is just having an empty line between the commit
> targets and unversioned files:
>
> === Targets to commit (you may delete items from it) ===
> M   /home/sartak/svk/playground/mastermind.pl
>
> ?   aaa
>
> which requires no code changes (except to make it the default
> behavior, as opposed to requiring -v). The commit handler already
> ignores empty lines. But this may still be too subtle.
>
> So in summary the options are:
> 1. leave the behavior as I wrote it
> 2. get rid of the -v flag and include unversioned files by default
> 3. add an empty line between commit targets and unversioned files
> 4. add a second header between commit targets and unversioned files
>
> I'll be happy no matter which way we go on this. #1 is less useful
> since people specifically have to remember to include -v (there isn't
> a "default switches" config anywhere is there?). #2 doesn't sit right
> with me.
>
> My vote is #4.
>
> Shawn M Moore
> _______________________________________________
> svk-devel mailing list
> svk-devel at bestpractical.com
> http://lists.bestpractical.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/svk-devel
>


-- 
Best regards, Ruslan.