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

[Sartak]

On 6/5/07, Ruslan Zakirov <ruz at bestpractical.com> wrote:
> 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.

An unversioned directory won't recursively add its unversioned
children to the commit log. (this may need to change when we get
s/\?/A/ support)

Shawn M Moore

>
> 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.
> _______________________________________________
> svk-devel mailing list
> svk-devel at bestpractical.com
> http://lists.bestpractical.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/svk-devel
>