Re: Two update notes

On Tue, Sep 04, 2001 at 02:52:01PM -0500, cmpilato@collab.net wrote:
> Kevin Pilch-Bisson <kevin@pilch-bisson.net> writes:
>
> > > Believe it or not, this is by design. I seem to remember Karl wanting
> > > to break people of the habit of using `svn up' to revert changes to a
> > > file (since we have `svn revert').
> >
> > Ahhh, that makes sense. Perhaps we should print a warning message to this
> > effect? At least temporarily.
>
> Oops. Ben tells me we never actually implemented this policy. You
> *should* be getting those files back (and in fact, I just watched Ben
> do this using ra_local with no problem). Not sure what the issue is
> here, then.

And I was about to state that the policy is rather bogus :-) A file could
get deleted for any number of reasons. Specifically: what if I torched a
whole bunch of files/subdirs and wanted *just that one*.

And this seems weird:

$ svn up subdir
$ svn up file.c

Why should just the latter fail? Or do both fail?

Cheers,
-g

-- 
Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org