On Wed, 28 Mar 2007, Tobias Schäfer wrote:
> "svn cat" would be different for two reasons:
> * your local modifications would be overwritten
Correct. The warning dialog that appears during the "revert"
certainly sounds like it will erase my local changes.
> * you could not commit the result because it would be "out of date"
I don't understand. I could commit it, and this is the scenario
how we found this behavior:
Rev 2 for file was completely messed up, and should be totally removed.
However, since this change touched every line in the file, the "revert
this change" option in tortoise (very nice feature by the way - I just
showed everyone today - jaws dropped everywhere. I am the local
subversion evangelist here, but I haven't used tortoise before) causes
conflicts with the later changes in rev 3,4,5,etc.
What we were going to do is "revert" to revision 1, and then merge in the
changes from 3,4,5. From the command line, I would have done:
svn cat -r2 file > file
svn merge -r2:5 file .
I think that "revert" is the proper terminology to use in this case, and I
I think "svn cat -r2 file > file" is synonymous with "svn revert -r2
file" (if revert accepted a revision parameter). I think using the word
"revert" when you don't actually call "svn revert" is confusing, though
perhaps the folks that use tortoise don't use the command line, so don't
notice the contradiction.
>> "revert" doesn't seem like the right term to me, since if there are local
>> changes, it doesn't revert them, but does some sort of merge.
> It *reverts* the changes of the selected revisions by reverting these
> changes in the working copy.
Sort of. I noticed the feature request last year to add the
"revert to this revision" as a shortcut for highlighting all files above
a revision and selecting "revert changes in this revision". So, I see how
it came about to mean what it does.
But, if I only select the one revision and say "revert to this
revision", I didn't select any of the above revisions, so I am not sure if
even non-command-line folks would expect it to behave like it does. But,
I guess since other people aren't talking about it, it is okay.
Is there an easier way to do the scenario I described above in
tortoise, or do you have to use the "save revision as" action?
> Correct, "replace" is only the right term if there are no local
> modifications. Do you have a suggestion how the paragraph could be changed
> to make it clearer?
I'll look and think about it. I am not convinced (yet) that it is
doing the right thing when there aren't any local changes either. But,
I'll check it out and report back. Thanks.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: email@example.com
For additional commands, e-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org
Received on Wed Mar 28 21:42:46 2007