535 results found

1. Clarify the conflict navigators in mergetool

   When viewing conflicts in the mergetool, there are two navigation "widgets" in the toolbar at the top of the window. The first one is for navigating the "Pending to solve" conflicts and the second one is for the full set of conflicts. Both of these navigators consist of arrow buttons for stepping back and forth, plus a couple of numbers to indicate which conflict we are looking at. (It is also possible to navigate the conflicts by simply clicking in a conflict block in the text panels, this updates the number indicating which conflict we're looking at.

   Now, there are still two tiny pieces of information that I find missing in order to make these navigator widgets clear and easy to use, especially for new users:

   • Change the first index indicator to something like: "Non-automatic: 2/5 (3 pending)".

   • Add a label to the second (unlabeled) index indicator, like: "Conflict: 4/9".

   Details:

   The most important issue here is that, in the current implementation, the numbers (3/5) in the first indicator look precisely the same way as in the second one, BUT it does not work the same way. The first indicator actually says (3 remaining out of a total of 5 non-automatic conflicts) while the second indicator says (you are at index 4 out of a total number of 9 conflicts).

   This means that the first indicator is missing a rather crucial piece of information, namely the (you are at index 2) part that is present in the second indicator. This is very confusing since when you press the arrow buttons, the index of all conflicts is updated in the second indicator but (what looks like it would be) the index of non-auto conflicts in the first indicator is not updated (since that number is instead indicating the number of remaining non-resolved conflicts and is only updated when a conflict is resolved).

   My suggested change above aims to change the layout and meaning of the first indicator into conceptually this: (you are at index 2 out of a total of 5 non-automatic conflicts, and 3 of these have not yet been resolved).

   (Note to staff: This uservoice originated from my private support ticket #8590.)

   When viewing conflicts in the mergetool, there are two navigation "widgets" in the toolbar at the top of the window. The first one is for navigating the "Pending to solve" conflicts and the second one is for the full set of conflicts. Both of these navigators consist of arrow buttons for stepping back and forth, plus a couple of numbers to indicate which conflict we are looking at. (It is also possible to navigate the conflicts by simply clicking in a conflict block in the text panels, this updates the number indicating which conflict we're looking at.

   Now, there are… more

   3 votes

   Vote 0 votes Vote Vote

   Vote

   We're glad you're here

   Please sign in to leave feedback

   Signed in as (Sign out)

   Close

   Close

   1 vote 2 votes 3 votes Remove votes

   You have left! (?) (thinking…)
   1 comment  ·  Edit…  ·  Delete…  ·  Admin →
   How important is this to you?

   Not at all You must login first! Important You must login first! Critical You must login first!

   We're glad you're here

   Please sign in to leave feedback

   Signed in as (Sign out)

   Close

   Close

   Submit Rating

2. code review re-assign should auto select 1st user in the filtered list

   currently, i am forced to choose the name, even if there is only one in the list which is making me crazy...
   auto selecting the 1st name after filtering is easy, and will save me a lot of unhappiness

   1 vote

   Vote 0 votes Vote Vote

   Vote

   We're glad you're here

   Please sign in to leave feedback

   Signed in as (Sign out)

   Close

   Close

   1 vote 2 votes 3 votes Remove votes

   You have left! (?) (thinking…)
   0 comments  ·  Edit…  ·  Delete…  ·  Admin →
   How important is this to you?

   Not at all You must login first! Important You must login first! Critical You must login first!

   We're glad you're here

   Please sign in to leave feedback

   Signed in as (Sign out)

   Close

   Close

   Submit Rating

3. interactive annotate view

   Interactive annotate view which allows to user to select two revisions to annotate between. This is similar to perforce timelapse view. A similar request is marked as completed although the implemented functionality is quite different and does not allow the user to easily annotate between two revisions.

   https://www.perforce.com/support/tutorial-video-library/video/using-time-lapse-view

   6 votes

   Vote 0 votes Vote Vote

   Vote

   We're glad you're here

   Please sign in to leave feedback

   Signed in as (Sign out)

   Close

   Close

   1 vote 2 votes 3 votes Remove votes

   You have left! (?) (thinking…)
   2 comments  ·  Delete…  ·  Admin →
   How important is this to you?

   Not at all You must login first! Important You must login first! Critical You must login first!

   We're glad you're here

   Please sign in to leave feedback

   Signed in as (Sign out)

   Close

   Close

   Submit Rating

4. Add git-like staging of parts of files

   (this is different to the existing idea 'Add git like staging').

   A thing I do in git all the time is use git-gui to select individual blocks and lines to stage and commit. For example I might fix two separate issues in the same file at the same time but want these committed separately.

   Plastic currently only allows committing the whole of a file at a time but I would find the git-like behaviour VERY useful.

   42 votes

   Vote 0 votes Vote Vote

   Vote

   We're glad you're here

   Please sign in to leave feedback

   Signed in as (Sign out)

   Close

   Close

   1 vote 2 votes 3 votes Remove votes

   You have left! (?) (thinking…)
   4 comments  ·  Delete…  ·  Admin →
   How important is this to you?

   Not at all You must login first! Important You must login first! Critical You must login first!

   We're glad you're here

   Please sign in to leave feedback

   Signed in as (Sign out)

   Close

   Close

   Submit Rating

5. Show diffs in Branch Explorer and Changesets views

   It would be nice to be able to see diffs of selected changesets in the Branch Explorer and Changesets views. I imagine it being a toggle (like the current 'navigator', 'legend' etc. buttons), which opens a panel which just shows the changes included with whatever changeset is selected.

   I used this kind of thing a lot whilst using git, through gitk, which roughly consists of 3 panels; the list of commits, the list of files within the selected commit, and the changes within the selected file.

   There is another suggestion open on UserVoice for including a list of changed files in the 'properties' panel which would be easier to implement, but I would also like to see content changes within files.

   It would be nice to be able to see diffs of selected changesets in the Branch Explorer and Changesets views. I imagine it being a toggle (like the current 'navigator', 'legend' etc. buttons), which opens a panel which just shows the changes included with whatever changeset is selected.

   I used this kind of thing a lot whilst using git, through gitk, which roughly consists of 3 panels; the list of commits, the list of files within the selected commit, and the changes within the selected file.

   There is another suggestion open on UserVoice for including a list of changed files… more

   9 votes

   Vote 0 votes Vote Vote

   Vote

   We're glad you're here

   Please sign in to leave feedback

   Signed in as (Sign out)

   Close

   Close

   1 vote 2 votes 3 votes Remove votes

   You have left! (?) (thinking…)
   6 comments  ·  Delete…  ·  Admin →
   How important is this to you?

   Not at all You must login first! Important You must login first! Critical You must login first!

   We're glad you're here

   Please sign in to leave feedback

   Signed in as (Sign out)

   Close

   Close

   Submit Rating

6. Add support for wildcards for repository names in lock.conf

   Currently, it is not possible to apply the same set of rules to multiple repositories, or indeed all repositories. My request is to add support for wildcards in repository names, so a set of rules can be made to affect multiple, or all repositories on the server.

   Eg.
   rep:* lockserver:my.lock.server:8087
   *.fbx

   Should make locking required on all fbx files on all repositories.

   6 votes

   Vote 0 votes Vote Vote

   Vote

   We're glad you're here

   Please sign in to leave feedback

   Signed in as (Sign out)

   Close

   Close

   1 vote 2 votes 3 votes Remove votes

   You have left! (?) (thinking…)
   0 comments  ·  Delete…  ·  Admin →
   How important is this to you?

   Not at all You must login first! Important You must login first! Critical You must login first!

   We're glad you're here

   Please sign in to leave feedback

   Signed in as (Sign out)

   Close

   Close

   Submit Rating

7. In cm rmattributereal, "realization" is a confusing word choice

   In cm rmattributereal, "realization" is a confusing word choice
   rmAttributeValue would be a better choice.

   Please add rmAttributeValue as an alias to rmattributereal.

   1 vote

   Vote 0 votes Vote Vote

   Vote

   We're glad you're here

   Please sign in to leave feedback

   Signed in as (Sign out)

   Close

   Close

   1 vote 2 votes 3 votes Remove votes

   You have left! (?) (thinking…)
   1 comment  ·  Delete…  ·  Admin →
   How important is this to you?

   Not at all You must login first! Important You must login first! Critical You must login first!

   We're glad you're here

   Please sign in to leave feedback

   Signed in as (Sign out)

   Close

   Close

   Submit Rating

8. Real undo of merges

   I've read your posting about undoing merges:
   http://blog.plasticscm.com/2014/07/how-to-undo-merge.html

   The problem of the solution provided there is that the removal of the integration does not remove the merge link. Furthermore the subtractive merge is not tracked. That is, the changes introduced into the branch "Release500" (CS 180) is like if a developer has manually removed the bugfix.
   Suppose the finalization of issue32 has not made it into Release500. Instead, it has been integrated directly into /main after the release. At the moment you integrate Feature500 into /main you remove the fix again, maybe without noticing.
   What we need is the ability to undo a merge in a way that effectively removes the merge link. That is, after undoing the merge, a new merge from issue32 into Feature500 will show up with all changes as if issue32 has never bin integrated into Feature_500.

   I've read your posting about undoing merges:
   http://blog.plasticscm.com/2014/07/how-to-undo-merge.html

   The problem of the solution provided there is that the removal of the integration does not remove the merge link. Furthermore the subtractive merge is not tracked. That is, the changes introduced into the branch "Release500" (CS 180) is like if a developer has manually removed the bugfix.
   Suppose the finalization of issue32 has not made it into Release500. Instead, it has been integrated directly into /main after the release. At the moment you integrate Feature500 into /main you remove the fix again, maybe without noticing.
   What we need… more

   10 votes

   Vote 0 votes Vote Vote

   Vote

   We're glad you're here

   Please sign in to leave feedback

   Signed in as (Sign out)

   Close

   Close

   1 vote 2 votes 3 votes Remove votes

   You have left! (?) (thinking…)
   6 comments  ·  Delete…  ·  Admin →
   How important is this to you?

   Not at all You must login first! Important You must login first! Critical You must login first!

   We're glad you're here

   Please sign in to leave feedback

   Signed in as (Sign out)

   Close

   Close

   Submit Rating

9. Branch rules/repositiry rules

   Good afternoon,
   I have a proposal to develop of the launch of triggers before operations Checking/Merge. These triggers will be realized by C# or other. If the trigger did with error, then operation Checking/Merge would not be executed.
   The problem definition is the project files are added with specific settings during the collaborative software development into the control version, such as a remote debugging flag or inadvertently not all files are described in the project file for adding to version control. Therefore, the project on another desktop couldn’t be compiled or launched without additional corrections and rewriting of the project file. The solution is the definition of the rules for the branch of project or repository.
   Perhaps it is advisable to keep these triggers on the server side. However, pass the triggers code to the client side before Checkin/Merge operation, because, the triggers size is much smaller than the data to be added to version control. Therefore, it will have the significant impact on to the performance of network traffic.
   Regards,
   Alexander Barkalov

   Good afternoon,
   I have a proposal to develop of the launch of triggers before operations Checking/Merge. These triggers will be realized by C# or other. If the trigger did with error, then operation Checking/Merge would not be executed.
   The problem definition is the project files are added with specific settings during the collaborative software development into the control version, such as a remote debugging flag or inadvertently not all files are described in the project file for adding to version control. Therefore, the project on another desktop couldn’t be compiled or launched without additional corrections and rewriting of the project… more

   4 votes

   Vote 0 votes Vote Vote

   Vote

   We're glad you're here

   Please sign in to leave feedback

   Signed in as (Sign out)

   Close

   Close

   1 vote 2 votes 3 votes Remove votes

   You have left! (?) (thinking…)
   5 comments  ·  Delete…  ·  Admin →
   How important is this to you?

   Not at all You must login first! Important You must login first! Critical You must login first!

   We're glad you're here

   Please sign in to leave feedback

   Signed in as (Sign out)

   Close

   Close

   Submit Rating

10. Show the current branch in Workspaces overview

    Currently, in the Workspaces overview, you only have columns for "Name", "Path" and "Repository". It would be nice to have another column "Current Branch".

    This would make it easier to identify the correct workspace for a certain branch when having multiple workspaces with varying branches.

    7 votes

    Vote 0 votes Vote Vote

    Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    Close

    Close

    1 vote 2 votes 3 votes Remove votes

    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    1 comment  ·  Delete…  ·  Admin →
    How important is this to you?

    Not at all You must login first! Important You must login first! Critical You must login first!

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    Close

    Close

    Submit Rating

11. Improve semantic outline to launch difference child window

    Right now the semantic outline only allows you to navigate to a difference, and selects it in the diff view.

    If I want to launch a separate window to view the differences I have to go to the diff window and click on the little "C" icon to pop up a view of the difference.

    I would like to be able to launch this directly from the outline by double-clicking, Ctrl+Click, or right-click -> context menu.

    This should be a simple improvement but will make using the semantic outline much more natural

    3 votes

    Vote 0 votes Vote Vote

    Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    Close

    Close

    1 vote 2 votes 3 votes Remove votes

    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    0 comments  ·  Edit…  ·  Delete…  ·  Admin →
    How important is this to you?

    Not at all You must login first! Important You must login first! Critical You must login first!

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    Close

    Close

    Submit Rating

12. Allow CM Find to work on all repositories without needing to specify each repository

    Currently you have to specify each repository you that you want cm find to look at. Unfortunately if you have a lot of repositories this takes a lot of typing (we have 100+). It would be nice if you could use an identifier to tell cm find to look at all repositories. For example: cm find changesets where owner='sbaum' on repositories '*'

    3 votes

    Vote 0 votes Vote Vote

    Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    Close

    Close

    1 vote 2 votes 3 votes Remove votes

    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    0 comments  ·  Edit…  ·  Delete…  ·  Admin →
    How important is this to you?

    Not at all You must login first! Important You must login first! Critical You must login first!

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    Close

    Close

    Submit Rating

13. Add more tab-sizes in Diff / Merge Editor Options

    Here's a quick one:
    In Diff / Merge view, the "Options - Editor Options - Tabs" submenu contains only 2 options: "4 spaces" and "8 spaces".

    At work, we consistently use 2 spaces. Therefore, please add a third option: "2 spaces". Or simply add all the possible choices from 1-10 or such...

    3 votes

    Vote 0 votes Vote Vote

    Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    Close

    Close

    1 vote 2 votes 3 votes Remove votes

    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    1 comment  ·  Edit…  ·  Delete…  ·  Admin →
    How important is this to you?

    Not at all You must login first! Important You must login first! Critical You must login first!

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    Close

    Close

    Submit Rating

14. Partial file checkin

    Would you consider adding an option to check in only selected changes in a file? I once saw such option in SourceTree. At first I thought it was useless, but sometimes I actually need to check a file in without certain changes made in it.

    I think you could add the feature to the diff viewer in Pending Changes. Each modified line could have a check box next to it, checked by default. What do you think?

    23 votes

    Vote 0 votes Vote Vote

    Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    Close

    Close

    1 vote 2 votes 3 votes Remove votes

    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    2 comments  ·  Delete…  ·  Admin →
    How important is this to you?

    Not at all You must login first! Important You must login first! Critical You must login first!

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    Close

    Close

    Submit Rating

15. The "All repositories" tab should open as a top-level view/route

    Currently when you try to access the list of all repositories, it opens beneath the current workspace tab. Then when you choose "View branch explorer" on a project, it opens another sub-workspace tab so now my workspace has two branch explorer tabs open in it, and one of them is not even related to the workspace. Clearly this is not the right place for these tabs to open. The Mac client does better by opening the repository list and workspaces in new windows. I'm sure you can come up with a better placement in the Windows client- for example, open "All repositories" as a top level tab anchored on left or right of the tab bar, and create a mock workspace to view the branch explorer of a repository not checked out locally.

    Currently when you try to access the list of all repositories, it opens beneath the current workspace tab. Then when you choose "View branch explorer" on a project, it opens another sub-workspace tab so now my workspace has two branch explorer tabs open in it, and one of them is not even related to the workspace. Clearly this is not the right place for these tabs to open. The Mac client does better by opening the repository list and workspaces in new windows. I'm sure you can come up with a better placement in the Windows client- for example, open… more

    1 vote

    Vote 0 votes Vote Vote

    Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    Close

    Close

    1 vote 2 votes 3 votes Remove votes

    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    0 comments  ·  Edit…  ·  Delete…  ·  Admin →
    How important is this to you?

    Not at all You must login first! Important You must login first! Critical You must login first!

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    Close

    Close

    Submit Rating

16. Add an option to prevent changing branches when you have added (private) files which are marked as pending adds.

    This would prevent you from adding a file and forgetting to add it to source control before changing branch. This idea here is that you would set Plastic up to discover private files so you can see which files need adding. Any solution files or built data you would put in separate folders which aren't under source control and thus aren't detected by Plastic. This approach prevents you from forgetting to add files, i.e it'll build for you locally but not for others.

    12 votes

    Vote 0 votes Vote Vote

    Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    Close

    Close

    1 vote 2 votes 3 votes Remove votes

    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    2 comments  ·  Delete…  ·  Admin →
    How important is this to you?

    Not at all You must login first! Important You must login first! Critical You must login first!

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    Close

    Close

    Submit Rating

17. Allow update-merge on "Update Workspace" and "Switch"

    Back in old Subversion, the scenario of "Updating to a newer changeset (on the current branch) while there are Pending Changes in the workspace" was handled very smoothly and seldom caused any problems. (Sure, conflicts can arise but they are usually minor since we are on the same branch.)

    I'm aware that it's recommended that each developer works on their own child branch. Nevertheless, this situation comes up, for example when two child branches are being concurrently merged back to the parent. Also, the Plastic team has already put some work into supporting this scenario:
    http://codicesoftware.blogspot.com/2012/02/working-on-single-branch-update-merge.html
    "While our recommended pattern is definitely branch-per-task, sometimes you’ll find yourself sharing a branch with another developer or even the whole team."

    Unfortunately, the current handling of this scenario is not optimal. There are (at least) 3 methods for updating the workspace to the latest contents on the current branch, and the third method differs from the first two in ways that are hard to predict:

    (1) Pressing "Update workspace" button on the Items view.
    (2) Switching to the same branch.
    (3) Pressing the "View new changes" button that appears in the Pending changes view when there are newer changesets.

    The setting "Other Options - Behavior when trying to switch / update with changed items" / PendingChangesOnSwitchAction controls some aspects regarding the behavior of method (1) and (2). When using the "No-Checkout" workflow, it has been recommended to choose the option "Allow" or "Allow, showing a warning" for this setting. However, in my experience this does not work well at all. This setting only affects Changed files and it causes several problems, even potentially blocking a subsequent Checkin! On the other hand, the default option "Do not allow, show an error" will prevent any attempt to use method (1) and (2) when there are local changes. Also, if there is any checked-out items, method (1) and (2) will be disallowed regardless of settings.

    (Details: If I switch/update with locally Changed files with the above option "Allow, showing a warning", I get the Confirm Update dialog. If I then choose to continue with the Update, I get the Update Results dialog. Here, my Changed files are listed as "not up-to-date" even if the new changesets on my branch contained only changes unrelated to these files! And if the new changesets on my branch did contain changes related to my changed files, I may even become unable to Checkin because of an error "parent revision is inconsistent with the loaded one"! Also, if I use "Update forced" I would lose my local changes.)

    Method (3) is only available if we have activated "Look for newer changes in the repository" under Options in the Pending Changes view. This method is working much better, since incoming changes are handled by a sub-branch-merge.

    (NOTE: When cloaking is active, the method (3) will always cause a Merge instead of an Update if there are newer changesets, potentially leading to unnecessary "sub-branching" even when there are no changes in the workspace!)

    My suggestion is to:

    • Completely remove the setting "Behavior when trying to switch / update with changed items"
    • Handle "Switch" and "Update Workspace" (method 1 and 2) very similar to "View new changes" (method 3).

    This would make the handling much more consistent. Both Changed and Checked-out items can then be merged, and a trivial switch/update can be performed if there are no conflicting files.

    Back in old Subversion, the scenario of "Updating to a newer changeset (on the current branch) while there are Pending Changes in the workspace" was handled very smoothly and seldom caused any problems. (Sure, conflicts can arise but they are usually minor since we are on the same branch.)

    I'm aware that it's recommended that each developer works on their own child branch. Nevertheless, this situation comes up, for example when two child branches are being concurrently merged back to the parent. Also, the Plastic team has already put some work into supporting this scenario:
    http://codicesoftware.blogspot.com/2012/02/working-on-single-branch-update-merge.html
    "While our recommended pattern… more

    12 votes

    Vote 0 votes Vote Vote

    Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    Close

    Close

    1 vote 2 votes 3 votes Remove votes

    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    3 comments  ·  Delete…  ·  Admin →
    How important is this to you?

    Not at all You must login first! Important You must login first! Critical You must login first!

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    Close

    Close

    Submit Rating

18. Track the evolution of a section of code back through revisions

    This overlaps with the existing version tree functionality in Plastic, and with the existing annotations functionality - and is probably related to method history too.

    My use cases are:-

    1. I see a piece of code that is broken, but don't know anything about what that code did in the first place, when it was introduced or who did it, and what were the checkin comments.

    2. Again, I see a piece of code that is broken, and I want to jump straight to the diff for that piece of code in whatever revision introduced the breakage. If that revision turns out not to be the one that broke that code, I want to jump back further without seeing other revisions that had nothing to do with that section of code.

    What I'm looking for is some way of focussing on a specific section of code and going back over revisions to see how that section of code changed, and ultimately how it got in the first place.

    For added value, I'd like to track that section of code as it moves around a file or across files.

    I've see annotation GUIs in other VCS offerings that allow a progressive jump back by line - this addresses my use cases for 80% of the time.

    Occasionally I'd like to track code motion too - so maybe some method history using the Semantic Outline mechanism would be good?

    Alternatively, could there be an option in the file 2-d history view to lock on to a line in the preview pane - that would be awesome, and I think that if Semantic Outline is enabled with analyse refactors, it would cope with code motion too.

    This overlaps with the existing version tree functionality in Plastic, and with the existing annotations functionality - and is probably related to method history too.

    My use cases are:-

    1. I see a piece of code that is broken, but don't know anything about what that code did in the first place, when it was introduced or who did it, and what were the checkin comments.

    2. Again, I see a piece of code that is broken, and I want to jump straight to the diff for that piece of code in whatever revision introduced the breakage. If that revision turns out… more

    6 votes

    Vote 0 votes Vote Vote

    Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    Close

    Close

    1 vote 2 votes 3 votes Remove votes

    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    6 comments  ·  Delete…  ·  Admin →
    How important is this to you?

    Not at all You must login first! Important You must login first! Critical You must login first!

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    Close

    Close

    Submit Rating

19. Add the ability to tag repositories

    Similar to the request to group workspaces and repositories (https://plasticscm.uservoice.com/forums/15467-general/suggestions/2772036-group-workspaces-and-repositories) but not quite the same.
    
    Using submodules to group repos limits you to a single classification of a repository. Ideally you are able to tag a repository with several keywords like you do on a forum or an article. This would allow us to tag a repository with 'real-time control' or 'imaging algorithm' but also tag it with a product name that uses it or the programming language that it is written in.
    This would necessitate a new repository view in the client where instead of a list of repos you get a tree view list of tags which expand to show the repos that have that tag.
    To set the tag, a right click menu 'Add Tag' would need to be added to the normal repo view.
    Having this feature would allow easy navigation of many small repos and further encourage use of the Xlink feature.

    Similar to the request to group workspaces and repositories (https://plasticscm.uservoice.com/forums/15467-general/suggestions/2772036-group-workspaces-and-repositories) but not quite the same.
    
    Using submodules to group repos limits you to a single classification of a repository. Ideally you are able to tag a repository with several keywords like you do on a forum or an article. This would allow us to tag a repository with 'real-time control' or 'imaging algorithm' but also tag it with a product name that uses it or the programming language that it is written in.
    This would necessitate a new repository view in the client where instead of a list… more

    10 votes

    Vote 0 votes Vote Vote

    Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    Close

    Close

    1 vote 2 votes 3 votes Remove votes

    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    2 comments  ·  Delete…  ·  Admin →
    How important is this to you?

    Not at all You must login first! Important You must login first! Critical You must login first!

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    Close

    Close

    Submit Rating

20. Configurable Read-Only access for GitServer

    Currently GitServer feature does not allow to configure any security.
    It would be nice to have at least possibility to limit access from GIT to read-only via configuration.

    1 vote

    Vote 0 votes Vote Vote

    Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    Close

    Close

    1 vote 2 votes 3 votes Remove votes

    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    1 comment  ·  Delete…  ·  Admin →
    How important is this to you?

    Not at all You must login first! Important You must login first! Critical You must login first!

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    Close

    Close

    Submit Rating