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

Re: 3 propositions for evolutions

From: Rick Yorgason <rick_at_firefang.com>
Date: 2007-02-13 03:54:03 CET

Alexander Klenin wrote:
> Hm. It will be _close_, but I am not quite sure exactly the same.
> IIUC, "Revert changes" applies "Reverse patch" of affected revisions.
> Perhaps there are situations, especially when merge is involved, when
> direct patch is applicable but reverse one is not. It needs some
> research, IMHO.

Hmm, you've got a point. I'm not certain it would work in that instance.

Ed Hillmann wrote:
> It just sounds too dangerous to me. Better the devil I know (this
> file is in conflict... at least let me see why) vs. the devil I don't.
> Again, my opinion

In my experience (which is likely less than yours; about 2.5 years of
using svn for code, xml, and art assets in small teams) it would be of
*very* limited usefulness, but there are instances when it's safe. For
instance:

Base:
x = 1
+ 2;

Theirs:
x = 1 + 5
+ 2;

Mine:
x = 1
+ 5 + 2;

Merge:
x = 1 + 5
+ 5 + 2;

Of course, in that instance you could just revert your own copy, and,
granted, I can't actually recall an instance when that's happened to me
in practice. The only time it's happened to me, there were conflicts
elsewhere in the file.

-Rick-

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@tortoisesvn.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tortoisesvn.tigris.org
Received on Tue Feb 13 03:53:58 2007

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