Jump to content
Francois Bertrand

Unsure what to expect from hidden_changes.conf and cloaked

Recommended Posts

Hi! I'm not quite grasping what the use of hidden_changes.conf and cloaked are. I've read the documentation many times but some of the wording is ambiguous to me and some of the behavior I'm seeing is not quite intuitive. I'd like to be able to put things under source control, but also be able to change them locally without them showing up in my list of changes every time (e.g. a locally changed configuration file or recompiled library). 

For example, I've got files in hidden_changes that are showing up in my "Pending Changes" window, with their status as "Changed / Hidden changed".

Wouldn't hidden_changes make them not show up in the pending changes? It seems to know that they are hidden, but still showing them. So what is the effect of "hidden changed"?

"Cloaked" seems to make the changes not appear on the list, which is what I want. But I'm still curious about what hidden changes would be used for.

Thank you!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To summarize I guess I have 2 fundamental questions:

1.  I've got files in hidden_changes that are showing up in my "Pending Changes" window, with their status as "Changed / Hidden changed". Wouldn't hidden_changes make them not show up in the pending changes? It seems to know that they are hidden, but still showing them. So what is the effect of "hidden changes"?

2. The use case I am just trying to cover is for configuration files that we want to have a "known good/default" version in source control, but that each user can modify locally, that are left alone otherwise (without any other interaction for merging/updating). Such files should be "manually updatable" when the user wants to revert their local version to a "known good/default".

i.e. another way to put it I think is: Is there a way to have files checked in the repository, that are downloaded if the user does NOT have them locally, but are NOT downloaded if the user has a local version. BUT that the user can manually "force update" if wanted? 

Thank you!!!

Francois

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Francois,
 

I'm seeing is not quite intuitive. I'd like to be able to put things under source control, but also be able to change them locally without them showing up in my list of changes every time (e.g. a locally changed configuration file or recompiled library). I believe this is a very common use case.

In that case, you need to use "hidden_changes.conf".
 

1. I've got files in hidden_changes that are showing up in my "Pending Changes" window, with their status as "Changed / Hidden changed". Wouldn't hidden_changes make them not show up in the pending changes? It seems to know that they are hidden, but still showing them. So what is the effect of "hidden changes"?

Do you also have the files as checked-out? If the files are only locally changed (not checked-out), it shouldn't appear in the "Pending Changes" view. 
Are you using Windows Plastic GUI?
 

2. The use case I am just trying to cover is for configuration files that we want to have a "known good/default" version in source control, but that each user can modify locally, that are left alone otherwise (without any other interaction for merging/updating). Such files should be "manually updatable" when the user wants to revert their local version to a "known good/default".

I understand. It fits pretty good with the purpose of "hidden_changes.conf". Please also open the "Options" panel in the "Pending changes" view and be sure you don't have enabled "Show hidden files".
 

i.e. another way to put it I think is: Is there a way to have files checked in the repository, that are downloaded if the user does NOT have them locally, but are NOT downloaded if the user has a local version AND doesn't show up in "pending changes" or any such operations, BUT that the user can manually "force update" if wanted?

The "hidden_changes.conf" will prevent you to create new revisions of this file (bu hiding your changes) but it won't prevent to download the new revisions if somebody creates a new revision of this file in the branch.

Regards,
Carlos.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...