On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 4:32 AM, Julian Foad <julian.f...@wandisco.com>wrote:
> Mark Phippard wrote: > > [...] You like to talk about the IDE use case, so let's talk about > > it. That is where I am coming from on this too. In Subclipse, [...] > > Mark (or anyone), do you recognize the use case described by Clemens > Anhuth in <http://subversion.tigris.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3028>? > > Use case (2) - Eclipse folder, from issue #3028 > > "For example we have a complete Eclipse instance in our svn > repository and we want to ignore every change in its directory > and below. Because Eclipse more or less at random creates and > deletes file from its own directory we have no way of knowing > which individual files may be change or deleted by starting > Eclipse. To avoid that an update creates files again that were > deleted by running Eclipse the ignore setting I am asking for > should also apply to updates. [...]" > > Is this use case important? Can such a case be adequately handled in > practice by what we've been discussing, despite what Clemens claims > about the need for recursive effect and avoiding the re-creation of > deleted files? > > I have never heard anyone ask for this, so while I think it is probably a valid use case, I cannot imagine it is common enough to be important. I also have to imagine in most cases like this the Eclipse IDE files would be stored in the tree in such a way that it was relatively easy to simply commit from another part of the tree to ignore it. In terms of how we could handle the use-case, we would have to allow svn:hold to be set on folders and then have that mean that commit does not harvest-committables from children of that folder. Do I think we should do this ... probably not. -- Thanks Mark Phippard http://markphip.blogspot.com/
