On Feb 10, 2006, at 12:16 PM, Trevor Harmon wrote:
But I don't see how the Perforce vs. BitKeeper vs. whatever wars are relevant. Can't the TextMate user choose whatever versioning control system works best for him?
The wars are not relevant to the discussion. Sadly, though, the TextMate user may have less influence over the version control system she/he must use than she/he would like.
In the course of a day I mostly work with files under version control. During the course of a day I open many, many files in TextMate for viewing, with no intention of editing. If every file I open for viewing gets checked out for edit (in the perforce sense), it is a hassle for me to revert those files later, and other users get warnings that I have those files open for edit when I don't actually intend to edit them. The warnings which are actually somewhat useful, degenerate to noise if every file I merely open for reading is opened for edit in the eyes of the version control system.
I'm NOT saying that the ability to hook into a file opening event is at all a bad thing. I am suspicious of hooking a version control operation into it though. If a file opening hook were available, and a version control bundle hooked it, I would hope that the hook would be an opt-in setting and not on by default.
More generally, I would like TextMate to treat read-only files as exactly that: read only and un-editable until I explicitly say I want to override the read-only status either by simply flipping a write flag, or a more involved version control system operation.
-john
(And BTW, does anyone in particular own the Perforce bundle? I've been adding some odds and ends to my copy of it...)