[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Monotone-devel] Re: [long] subdirectory restrictions
From: |
graydon hoare |
Subject: |
[Monotone-devel] Re: [long] subdirectory restrictions |
Date: |
Tue, 21 Sep 2004 07:16:06 -0400 |
User-agent: |
Opera M2/7.53 (Linux, build 737) |
On Mon, 20 Sep 2004 23:39:08 -0700, Nathaniel Smith <address@hidden> wrote:
===== Original Message From Derek Scherger <address@hidden> =====
I'm happy to report that I finally have restricted/subdirectory
operations essentially working in the code on the restrictions branch.
Yay!
seconded! this is great news derek, thanks.
- Partial updates: These don't just create a fork; they create a completely
independent new root node in your branch.
yeah, these are actually very dangerous since they merge so well; I'm happy
just leaving this disabled for a while.
There's also the standard pragmatic test, that asks which behavior is
easier to emulate given the other... in my proposal, to get a full
version diff, I say
$ monotone diff
and to get a diff of the current directory, I say
$ monotone diff .
I do somewhat like the sound of this better. and honestly, I often do a diff
to see what I'm about to commit, so having the system *accidentally* tell me
that there's stuff I forgot about (which I'm going to commit) one directory
over is a virtue in my mind.
that said, the other "standard pragmatic test" is to ask a statistically
meaningful group of users which feels better. anyone else have a preference?
and I'd much rather be able to say
$ monotone commit --exclude Makefile
than
$ monotone commit `find . -type f -a ! -path ./Makefile`
eh, I don't know, "monotone commit `find | grep -v '^Makefile'`" is how
I'd compose it, and I don't feel like I'd be hurting myself much by having
to say so. but then, maybe bash scar tissue shouldn't be a prerequisite
for using new tools. I don't know.
you're right that --exclude can exist independently of --include, though;
and I think I'm comfortable with this notion of returning positional args
to their conventional role of meaning "included filenames". all well and
good. on --exclude, then, anyone else have a preference?
-graydon