On Sat, May 3, 2008 at 5:10 PM, Steve Borho <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Sat, 2008-05-03 at 08:13 +0200, Peter Arrenbrecht wrote: > > On Fri, Apr 25, 2008 at 5:41 PM, Adrian Buehlmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > On 25.04.2008 16:53, Adrian Buehlmann wrote: > > > > On 25.04.2008 16:06, Doug Philips wrote: > > > >> On Friday, April 25, 2008, at 08:58AM, "Adrian Buehlmann" wrote: > > > >>> What do you think a tool does if it tries to delete a > > > >>> non-existing registry key? Format your harddisk? > > > >> It might decide that the system is in an inconsistent state and > rather than risk screwing it up, it could reasonably decline to de-install > (or finish de-installing depending on when it checks)... > > > > > > > > LOL. If uninstallers were that nitpicky then they would > > > > be not very successful. > > > > > > > >>> Hopefully not, since the installation of those registry > > > >>> keys could have failed, too. > > > >> ?? > > > > > > > > The installer could fail installing a registry key for > > > > various reasons, one of them could be that the target > > > > key's permission don't allow write access. > > > > > > > > Writing the uninstaller part based on the assumption > > > > that all keys were 100% successfully installed would > > > > be rather silly. > > > > > > > > > > Speaking of which, Explorer allows only fifteen slots for > > > icon overlays, ignoring all in excess. > > > > > > As discussed on > > > http://selenic.com/pipermail/mercurial/2008-April/018616.html > > > > > > I haven't heard of TortoiseHG going wild in that situation. > > > The overlay icons are simply not displayed in that case. > > > The rest of THG still works. > > > > > > As a (hopefully) last comment on this thread, the THG overlay > > > handler still caches filenames and reads local and global hgrc files > > > even if the icons are disabled globally in Mercurial.ini, thus > > > wasting CPU time and memory for users wanting to permanently *not* > > > having any overlay icons on any repository. THG overlay handler > > > also kicks in if an open file dialog from *any* application is opened. > > > > > > Removing the entries in the registry, as I wrote, is the most > > > effective solution with regards to speed for the case when > > > the user permanently doesn't want to have any overlay icons ever. > > > > I for one welcome Adrian's hint. > > > > So would this not be a good candidate for an installer option? To skip > > installation of the whole overlay handler? > > No problem with this, but it will have to wait until the next release. > I'm already a week behind simply building the 0.4rc2 installer, and this > will require some non-trivial changes to the way the installer works.
Can the installer be called to remove the overlay extension only, after a normal installation, if users decide to do so? ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by the 2008 JavaOne(SM) Conference Don't miss this year's exciting event. There's still time to save $100. Use priority code J8TL2D2. http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;198757673;13503038;p?http://java.sun.com/javaone _______________________________________________ Tortoisehg-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/tortoisehg-discuss
