[svn.haxx.se] · SVN Dev · SVN Users · SVN Org · TSVN Dev · TSVN Users · Subclipse Dev · Subclipse Users · this month's index

RE: svn rollback (Was: Re: svn commit: rev 2162 - ...)

From: Bill Tutt <rassilon_at_lyra.org>
Date: 2002-06-12 21:32:41 CEST

> From: cmpilato@collab.net [mailto:cmpilato@collab.net]
>
> Garrett Rooney <rooneg@electricjellyfish.net> writes:
>
> > On Wed, Jun 12, 2002 at 11:44:27AM -0700, Bill Tutt wrote:
> > > > From: Garrett Rooney [mailto:rooneg@electricjellyfish.net]
> >
> > > > i think we can avoid this problem by being more clear in the
'help'
> > > > output for each command and sticking with good command names.
yes,
> i
> > > > had a different idea of what rollback should do that apparently
> > > > everyone else, but if there had been an 'undo' command, i don't
> think
> > > > i would have tried to use 'rollback' to get that functionality.
> > > >
> > >
> > > I'm now not even sure what the difference between undo and revert
is.
> We
> > > already have a revert command.
> >
> > ack, that's a good point. i guess 'undo' isn't the appropriate name
> > for what my initial 'rollback' implementation did. in any event, it
> > doesn't change the fact that the vast majority of people all had the
> > same idea about what 'svn rollback' should do, and it just happened
> > that the one person who felt otherwise was the person who coded it
:/
>
> Right. `Undo' was just something I shot off quickly in a mail, not a
> well-thought-out suggestion. And as Garrett mentioned, there has so
> far only been one person (Garrett himself) who has mentioned being
> confused about what rollback means. I think the word itself is fairly
> intuitive, and our definition of what it means (or, should mean)
> aligns with what at least one other tool (VSS) considers a "rollback".
>
> > > To turn the issue upside down for a second looking for other
options:
> Is
> > > there any reason we just couldn't make "update -r N" not change
the
> WCs
> > > recorded text-base, and entries data? Isn't that what the user
> probably
> > > wanted anyway?
> >
> > now we're opening a whole new can of worms... opinions? i'm not
sure
> > what i think about it.
>
> When I do `svn update -r N', I certainly don't want `svn status'
showing
> my
> working copy as a bunch of mods! -1 (no veto) all over that mess.

After talking with Sussman on IRC a bit, I think that a well documented
svn rollback is probably the best shot there is in getting the
functionality to the user.

Tweaking "svn update -rN"'s behavior in this way causes other problems
with other subversion commands. i.e. copy, etc...

Bill

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Wed Jun 12 21:33:46 2002

This is an archived mail posted to the Subversion Dev mailing list.