Bug 250099 - [Repo View] Filter modules in CVS repository list
Summary: [Repo View] Filter modules in CVS repository list
Status: ASSIGNED
Alias: None
Product: Platform
Classification: Eclipse Project
Component: CVS (show other bugs)
Version: 3.4   Edit
Hardware: PC Linux
: P3 enhancement (vote)
Target Milestone: ---   Edit
Assignee: platform-cvs-inbox CLA
QA Contact:
URL:
Whiteboard:
Keywords: helpwanted
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2008-10-08 10:40 EDT by Daniel Felix Ferber CLA
Modified: 2019-09-06 16:06 EDT (History)
2 users (show)

See Also:


Attachments

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description Daniel Felix Ferber CLA 2008-10-08 10:40:21 EDT
Currently, the CVS plugin allows adding new CVS repositories.

However, on very large repositories (like the Eclipse Tools repository with more than 70 modules), people use to work only on the same set of modules. It becomes very difficult to browse to the module of interest.

There could be some solutions to this issue:
 - Create sets to filter modules to be displayed, the others remain hidden. I tried the working set from the CVS repository view, but it does not work to filter arbitrary modules from the view.
 - When adding a new CVS repository, allow selecting a module as a (virtual) root. The CVS repository view whould then only display submodules under the TRUNK.
 - When navigating until the wanted module, one can do "Go into". This shows only submodules. However, the CVS repository view regularly looses its state.
Comment 1 Tomasz Zarna CLA 2008-10-21 07:53:52 EDT
Sounds reasonable to me, moreover it's the first bug related to improving Repo View navigation. See also bug 156122, bug 185997 or bug 150302. I'm pretty sure one can find a couple more. Patches are welcome since we probably won't have enough manpower to address it during 3.5.
Comment 2 Eclipse Webmaster CLA 2019-09-06 16:06:51 EDT
This bug hasn't had any activity in quite some time. Maybe the problem got resolved, was a duplicate of something else, or became less pressing for some reason - or maybe it's still relevant but just hasn't been looked at yet.

If you have further information on the current state of the bug, please add it. The information can be, for example, that the problem still occurs, that you still want the feature, that more information is needed, or that the bug is (for whatever reason) no longer relevant.