On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 5:01 AM, Douglas Philips <[email protected]> wrote: > On 2009 Jan 13, at 11:55 PM, TK Soh wrote: >>> should it unshelve a file after it has been committed? this would >>> be more >>> record-like >> >> I don't think so. Record works by shelving the changes before >> committing [the remaining ones], so it must unshelve after the commit. >> In our case, shelve is initiated by user, so unshelve should be so >> too. > > Uhm, well, Qct does the 'record' auto shelve/unshelve. > For a specific/deliberate shelve/unshelve that is not part of a commit > operation, I agree, what the user has done the user should undo. > >>> Having 'unknowns' visible at startup should be a sticky option. >>> You risk >> >> We want to avoid making sticky option selectively. If we are going to >> make 'unknown' sticky, then all the other options should be too. > > I would like to see all options be sticky, but I think I've lost that > battle before...
Have you? Hmm... I can really recall that. I thought the request was simply pushed down the list due to insufficient resources. >> It should be this way. In fact all FILE specified at argv should be >> selected. It seemed strange to have to select the files again, if I >> already choose to add them via, either the explorer context menu, or >> hgtk add. > > I agree with that. I've given up on it since it was always ignored, it > would be nice to (eventually) have it work. One again. I don't remember the final words of that discussion. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ This SF.net email is sponsored by: SourcForge Community SourceForge wants to tell your story. http://p.sf.net/sfu/sf-spreadtheword _______________________________________________ Tortoisehg-develop mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/tortoisehg-develop
