Closed GoogleCodeExporter closed 9 years ago
It works for me. I just tried it (with Subversion 1.6.6).
Note: In Tree View you can only add/edit/delete properties for items within the
selected/current folder.
I.e. items selected on the right-hand list view. You can't see or edit
properties of the current folder.
[You have to select the parent of the current folder on the left & then select
the original folder on the right.
This may change in a future release.]
You may have added the property to a different item than you think.
Select all the items in your original folder & check if you can see the
svn:ignore property.
Was that it?
Which version of Subversion are you using?
Original comment by chris...@gmail.com
on 21 May 2010 at 4:00
[deleted comment]
I ignore library folders by setting svn:ignore on the root. I would like to
edit the properties of the root folder, and this appears to be impossible from
the reduced list view within svnX. (In the expanded list view or tree view
it's quite possible, so this is not a big deal.)
Here's one suggestion: if nothing is selected on the right, have Properties
edit the current folder.
In the case of ignore in particular, I would not object to a control-click ->
Ignore option. But, I am not intimate with svn, and I don't understand the
details of all the different ways to ignore something. For example, I've heard
something about a global configuration file, and I don't know if it's feasible
to magically change the right setting.
Original comment by vanc...@gmail.com
on 8 Jul 2010 at 6:49
Vanceza,
As to your first suggestion - I think that that was already implied by the
preceding comment.
[I think that this would only be appropriate in tree-view mode,
as then there's some indication of the properties' owner.]
Your second suggestion was already added by the OP as Issue 92.
Regarding global ignores:
search for “global-ignores” in “~/.subversion/config”
or Google “global-ignores site:http://svnbook.red-bean.com/”.
Original comment by chris...@gmail.com
on 9 Jul 2010 at 1:36
Thanks for the link. I didn't notice 92.
Original comment by vanc...@gmail.com
on 12 Jul 2010 at 8:59
Original issue reported on code.google.com by
martin.t...@gmail.com
on 21 May 2010 at 1:57