Login | Register
My pages Projects Community openCollabNet

Discussions > dev > Re: discussion of fsvs setup in common binary packages

fsvs
Discussion topic

Back to topic list

Re: discussion of fsvs setup in common binary packages

Author tekknokra
Full name Gunnar Thielebein
Date 2010-08-31 07:06:50 PDT
Message On 31/08/10 15:45, Philipp Marek wrote:
> Hello Gunnar!
>
>> Regarding enhancements I stumbled about an issue I noted some time ago with
>> ignore list behavior.
>> When new filter rules are applied to (or remove from) ignore list you still need
>> to add/unversion appropriate files manually.
> Well, it's the behaviour of subversion and git (and, IIRC, mercurial, etc. too), that an
> ignore list is used for detecting *which files should be versioned*.
>
> But it may not change the list of files that are already known, kept and stored.
>
>
> The basic idea was that the patterns are used for removing noise from "status" display -
> ie entries that are not versioned.
> "fsvs add" should have priority, so that I can always define exceptions to the rules.
>

I fully agree. But the work begins if files needs to be sorted out because of
privacy or bloating the repo etc. I think fsvs behavior can, because of its
clueness and different use case, be different in that area. Comparing to svn the
fsvs ignore list is also more centric then some sporadic propsets containing
ignore rules.

>
>> How hard would it be to implement some enhancement to run add/unversion
>> internally when ignore list is modified and will that break the philosophy
>> behind ignore list? I'd admit a sense to keep add/unversion for someone but the
>> disadvantage is that you loose an overview of the filtered files. Thats what IMO
>> the ignore list should also be used for. What is your point on this?
> Well, I could certainly imagine a command that synchronizes the filelist against the
> ignore patterns.
>
> Or perhaps an option for commit; but I think the extra command would be better.
> (If you make it an option, you could set it in your config - that would suit your kind
> of work better.)
>
>
> How about "filelist-sync"? No, too general.
> Hmmm, "sync" and "ignore" as prefixes are already well-established ... so it should be
> something different.

I am also more for an option that changes the behaviour of "fsvs ignore".
What about something like "sync-with-ignore" defaulting to false? Would it be
necessary or even suffice to run a "sync-repos"?

>
>
> Regards,
>
> Phil
>

« Previous message in topic | 5 of 8 | Next message in topic »

Messages

Show all messages in topic

discussion of fsvs setup in common binary packages tekknokra Gunnar Thielebein 2010-07-22 04:05:48 PDT
     Re: discussion of fsvs setup in common binary packages pmarek P.Marek 2010-07-22 08:10:04 PDT
     Re: discussion of fsvs setup in common binary packages tekknokra Gunnar Thielebein 2010-08-31 05:28:43 PDT
         Re: discussion of fsvs setup in common binary packages pmarek P.Marek 2010-08-31 06:45:25 PDT
             Re: discussion of fsvs setup in common binary packages tekknokra Gunnar Thielebein 2010-08-31 07:06:50 PDT
                 Re: discussion of fsvs setup in common binary packages pmarek P.Marek 2010-08-31 08:10:20 PDT
                     Re: discussion of fsvs setup in common binary packages tekknokra Gunnar Thielebein 2010-08-31 09:15:52 PDT
                         Re: discussion of fsvs setup in common binary packages pmarek P.Marek 2010-08-31 23:49:30 PDT
Messages per page: