Re: Two update notes

On Tue, Sep 04, 2001 at 02:42:01PM -0500, cmpilato@collab.net wrote:
> Kevin Pilch-Bisson <kevin@pilch-bisson.net> writes:
>
> > Hey, I found two (possibly related) bugs regarding updating.
> >
> > The first is that updating a missing entry doesn't work.
> >
> > rm main.c
> > svn up main.c
> >
> > (Don't get anything)
>
> 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').
[SNIP]
well, I think that thinking is kinda weird. in my opinion, svn update
should bring my working copy _up to date_ with the repository, and this
means that I _should_ have that file, thus it _should_ be fetched for
me. so even if it opens up a way for a not-so-official-revert-strategy,
I'd vote for not implementing this behaviour.

cheers,
mitch

-- 
// RADICS Peter <mitch_at_lbcons.net> (http://lbcons.net)
//
// "If human beings don't keep exercising their lips, 
//  their brains start working." -- Ford Prefect
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org