This Bugzilla instance is a read-only archive of historic NetBeans bug reports. To report a bug in NetBeans please follow the project's instructions for reporting issues.
Suggest to change the default annotation pattern to "${fileName}$[? sticky] [ (${sticky})] []". The status info is redundant, as it is alredy dispalyed by the icon badges.
This is a trivial change, any chance this could be evaluated and possibly implemented for 3.6?
This change is trivial, but it have a big impact. This change needs more discussion and more time, which we do not have right now. It has impact on UI and on docs. I'm not sure it's good to make such a change after beta is out. Anyway, we can discuss this in our team. What's the assessment of HIE?
Martin, if you can, please try to do this. It unarguably makes a positive impact on usability; I doubt docs is going to care one way or the other.
I'm against this change because: 1) It affect QE TestSpecification, Automated Test. 2) It's against the idea of VCS support in IDE. 3) I disagree that it narguably makes a positive impact on usability. 4) Icon badges can't distingues between eg. [Localy Added] and [Localy modified] and for Multi-DataObjects like form, there is no way how to represent its status by icon badge. 5) Icons badgets are tiny nothing saying pictures and I'm not able to distingush between them. I beliewe other users might have similar problem. 6) badgets don't tell me file's revision.
>Suggest to change... ^^^^^^^ BTW, isn't it more ENHANCEMENT then DEFECT, is it?
Wow, not sure how this rfe (agreed) deserved such aggressive answers. Here's my second take on justifying this: this request is driven by the need to minimize the width of Node display names in the explorer to prevent the display of the horizontal scrollbar. Partially, this is also about simplification of the UI so that it only displays the information that the users really need to see and care about. I do not buy the argument that this is too late to anything about - it was opened almost two months ago without any response, yes, it might be too late now, but the problem is not on the requestor's side. Regarding some other Dan's points, well, what to say, things like "It's against the idea of VCS support in IDE." really pinpoints how grounded those arguments are.
I understand the reason why this change is requested. On the other hand, we have more then 160 defects in VCS, therefore we're solving real defects in functionality first. It's apparent that we can not solve everything. As you've said, this is simple, but I'm not convinced we should fix it that way. For users it would be almost impossible to add the status annotation back if they would like to. IMHO a better solution would be to have a boolean option "Hide VCS Status Annotation", that can be set to true by default, but can be easily turned to true if necessary. Also the logic of icon badges would have to be improved. Currently you have no icon badge for DataObjects with multiple files of different statii. I just feel, that this problem needs some feedback from our users, since it has a big impact on all users working with version control systems.
Well, I didn't intend it sounds so agressive. Sorry about that. I'm not diplomat:-) Seems that Martin is better in this way and I can only agree with him for all his comments. >it was opened almost two months ago without any response... Well, I didn't catch it. You know... We're working on vcs stuff and you on UI and till there's some conflict in ours ideas I don't watch such proposal. And I guess the same is with the majority of NB users... thanks
I'd like to propose a compromise solution - can we at least hide the status "Up to date"? This is clearly badged, and at any given time, most files will have this status. I can file that as a separate issue, and we can leave this issue open. It would solve the problem for a significant percentage of the cases. I'd recommend removing out the version number as well unless the source is on a branch, and maybe not even then - the only time that information is useful is when merging. The point is, this is a way we can improve user experience, and it's an easy thing to do. I think we have no excuse not to do it.
Well, I don't see the point. It will need to be discussed.
*** Issue 40032 has been marked as a duplicate of this issue. ***