Julian Foad <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I'll just mention a few points. > > When a user asks Subversion to stop handling a keyword, > > * some will want to remove the entire keyword from the text; > > * some will want to keep the last expanded value as ordinary versioned text; > > * some will want to keep an empty, contracted keyword placeholder in the > text. > > The first requires manual editing, and that's fine. Of the second and > third, do we have a hope of guessing which is more common? > > Is it "svn diff" that we should be fixing, rather than "propdel"? > > Consider the dangers of modifying a file while it might be open in a > user's editor. The same dangers apply to "update", "merge", etc., so > it's "just" a matter of user education, but text changes caused by a > property command is a new phenomenon. > > If we are going to contract the keyword, consider doing it at commit > time rather than at prop-change time, as that would avoid the > text-change problem. (Do what, exactly? Contract the set of keywords > that is the union of base and working prop values?) > > More thought required.
Hmmm. What you say makes me think that showing a "local mod" (the still-expanded keyword) after the propdel might be at least as useful as automatically contracting the keyword. And showing the local mod alerts the user that there's a conscious decision to be made here. My (mild) inclination is to stay with status quo now. The diff may be annoying, but at least it's not a silent change. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
