Totally agree that checkboxes in a commit dialog makes much more sense
with large, deeply nested projects than manually selecting everything
you want to commit. I had to deal with this for several months on a
large project and believe me, it would be much faster to have
checkboxes presented. As long as they're all checked by default, this
doesn't change your normal workflow, so what's the big deal?

Tested Cornerstone a bit recently... interface is definitely more
clunky than Versions. Overall I think Versions still has the edge,
despite its quirks, but man, if the browser columns would stay put and
the commits/updates were non-modal, there'd be no contest. :)


On Nov 19, 10:14 am, Kevin Powick <> wrote:
> On Nov 19, 12:08 pm, Asbjørn Ulsberg <> wrote:
> > the workflow Quinn lays out is the same I have with SmartSVN and  
> > it's so much simpler to do than the cmd+click option, which is really  
> > impossible if you have a both wide and deep folder hierarchy.
> Agreed. It is much faster/easier to just click "commit" and be
> presented with tidy checkbox list.  Adding such a feature should in no
> way alter the workflows or file inclusion methods that other posters
> already use.
> Btw, due to recent issues with Versions, I've been evaluating
> Cornerstone and it does have the checkbox feature.  Though I still
> find Versions' interface slightly cleaner, Cornerstone is impressive,
> and the longer I wait for features and fixes, the more I'm inclined to
> switch.
> --
> Kevin Powick
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Versions" group.
To post to this group, send email to
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at

Reply via email to