Hi Neels, For the time I have been writing this email I have struggled to find a use-case where "I" would use your new feature proposa None the less; I really like the idea.
It really isn't changing anything of real substance from the users point of view. * It just simplifies my commit processes because now I no longer have to manually exclude a file from being committed. * A temporary svn:ignore until I "actively" choose to commit it. As for the concern about whether to update the file on hold or not... I don;t have a string opinion either way. Is there any possibility of having that behaviour an option? I.e. chose to have a held file updated or not - as opposed to having it dictated to the end-user? Gavin On 21/08/2011, at 9:48 AM, Neels J Hofmeyr wrote: > On 08/20/2011 03:13 AM, Mark Phippard wrote: > [...] >> That said, some of these questions concern me. Have you outlined your >> vision for this feature in its entirety? The idea that svn up would not >> update these files scares me. I have never heard anyone ask for anything >> but having an easy way to exclude some files from commit. IMO, other >> operations like update/merge/switch ought to all do their normal behavior >> and not be impacted by a special property. >> >> I also wonder about commit performance. Does WC-NG make this a non-issue? >> I would imagine having to do a property check on every file could become >> expensive, but at the same time with a focused and tuned SQL query it could >> probably be negligible. > > Hi Mark, > > thanks for these excellent questions. > I have taken the occasion to write a comprehensive description of my current > vision for svn:hold. > > I share your reservation about holding back updates, but it is being > mentioned in two issues (#2858 and #3028), so we better have an answer for it. > > There naturally is some inconvenience about merging held-back files, because > the merge result should usually always be committed. So mergers have to > remember to --do-not-hold when committing merges. > > Commit performance loss is only an issue when there are very many files that > are modified, as the property only needs to be checked on files that are > modified in some way (at the very "tip" of harvest_committables()). > > Well, I should stop repeating what's already said in notes/hold. I hope that > the outline is satisfactory, and please hint me at topics I might have > missed in there! > > http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/subversion/trunk/notes/hold > > ~Neels >
