But why do you want to replace it in the merge tool if this is how your code is actually written?
Does your IDE does this?
Would you mind elaborating a little bit more?
Yes, this is very interesting and not hard to do. We have to work on a batch of GitServer changes, and we'll consider this one then.
Would you prefer to have weight (then you have to assign it to each branch, which is a little bit painful) or would you prefer to have some sort of naming convention for this??
And, you want this weight to be private to you, right?
Do you feel like giving it a try? :)
And you mean you somehow authenticate with the token instead with user/passwd or whatever, right? Something like "Security Mode = user token" and then the token.
Do you mean Gluon??
Because it is working in the regular diff view.
Yes, this is a really good idea. In fact we are already experimenting with it :-)
We will consider your specific suggestions!
Look, the thing is that in Semantic comments are linked to the next declaration. So, consider the following function:
// this is a comment
The comment is considered to be linked to the main function in this case.
Obviously for file-wide comments this is not good, so maybe we should add something specific to handle these cases.
Any thoughts will be appreciated.
Thanks Christian. We will take a look into it.
We are working on two sides here: one is adding native support for Plastic to Unity Cloud Build, something we are trying to move forward with Unity as I speak. Not sure when it will happen, though.
Second: we definitely want to add GitServer support to Plastic Cloud. In fact, it was the primary reason to have GitServer in the first place. But moving it to Cloud means refactoring some code, and we are still on it. We expect to have it in the next few months, we wanted to have it earlier but we got totally swamped.
Hi all, just in case you didn’t know, we just published a guide explaining how to write parsers for Semantic. Now it is possible to add any language you want :-)
Hi all, just in case you didn't know, we just published a guide explaining how to write parsers for Semantic. Now it is possible to add any language you want :-)
Please consider this suggestion https://plasticscm.uservoice.com/forums/15467-general/suggestions/8278431-preview-changes-for-changesets when implementing this. It is a duplicate of this one :-)
Hi Jan. Even clicking in the code section I'm unable to reproduce your issue. Look at the following video:
Please could you share with us some clues that can help to find what is happening? Really, thank you very much for your feedback!
Hi Chris. Thanks for your feedback. I tried to reproduce the issue that you're describing but unfortunately I was unable to reproduce it.
Here there is an small video that reproduces the behavior you explain, and it works fine.
Could you please explain give us some information about the issue?
Indeed one of the key things we must add soon.
Interesting suggestion. Dockable views are something we considered several times. They don't align that well on our quest for a simpler GUI, though.
Let's see if this request gets more votes from other users first :-)
Thanks for the remarks.
Did you know there was a time when Plastic had ways to show more than one view??
We never really manage to make people love it, though.
You can do what you are looking for if you use Visual Studio, since you can stack views freely.
What do you mean by "branch tab"? I mean, show the br explorer and then what on the right?
We can certainly add the "go to children" option in the Branch Explorer.
The BrEx is one of our strongest features, so I think we should focus on it. There are filters and subdiagrams to make it easier to understand. Onf of the weaknesses of Mercurial/Git tools is precisely the lack of proper visualization, IMHO.
That being said, I'm not against adding this info as properties on the changesets view, something added on the right panel. But while implementing it is not hard, there are tons of requests, so we should prioritize it. And we do based on votes from users and mixing it with our own personal view of the product evolution.
We will need this request to get slightly more popular to start working on it :)
Why would you like this instead of taking advantage of the Branch Explorer?
It is definitely an interesting suggestion.
Since it means a radically different way of displaying the changes, we should probably add it as an option. Options means introducing more complexity and... well, you know, always hard to deal with :-)
So, here is what we can do: this issue has 1 vote now, we can wait a few weeks and thing if it is something other users are interested on.
But once you click on the link, you see the extra info, don't you?
We have a big redesign of the entire code review stuff in progress.
So I take note of your request and add it to the list of notes.
Yes, it probably should.
Problem is that tracking the attributes which is what I think you are missing, or the labels, to check whether the replica should be fired or not, would greatly impact performance.
Not something we are against, of course, and we should probably find a solution that is fast enough and good enough.
We need to wait for users to vote it up, though.
Well, showing deleted files is not something I really like. Anyway, it is very easy for you to achieve: diff with an older version, find your file, and act from there.