On 01/04/2013 04:26 PM, Daniel Shahaf wrote: > C. Michael Pilato wrote on Fri, Jan 04, 2013 at 16:25:07 -0500: >> On 01/04/2013 03:57 PM, Daniel Shahaf wrote: >>> Stefan Sperling wrote on Fri, Jan 04, 2013 at 19:31:20 +0100: >>>> On Fri, Jan 04, 2013 at 01:23:28PM -0500, C. Michael Pilato wrote: >>>>> Can anyone make an argument for me *not* to reintegrate my branch to trunk >>>>> for 1.8 release? I need to code up some more regression tests for the >>>>> --cl >>>>> "" behaviors, but I don't really want to invest that energy today if I >>>>> know >>>>> that dev@ is disinterested in seeing this new functionality in 1.8 anyway. >>>> >>>> Please merge it to trunk! >>>> >>>> This feature is already mentioned in the 1.8 draft release notes and >>>> I'm glad to learn that you've fixed it up. >>> >>> I hope that's not the only reason you want to merge it --- it'd be >>> simple to axe it from the release notes. >> >> Yeah, I was kinda hoping for a bit more justification myself. Is the trunk >> behavior what we want to ship/live with? See, I'm having a bit of trouble >> really remembering the driving use-case here. > > svn st -q --cl "" > > ?
I suppose. Seems kinda lame, though, since 'svn status -q' always shows you the non-changelist stuff at the top of its output anyway. -- C. Michael Pilato <cmpil...@collab.net> CollabNet <> www.collab.net <> Enterprise Cloud Development
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
