> 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.
I agree. How about gently reminding the user on STDERR that we have
svn revert:
$ rm main.c
$ svp up main.c
U main.c
*** Hey! I just retrieved main.c, which you deleted. Did you know ***
*** that you can do 'svn revert main.c'? ***
$
-Fitz
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Sat Oct 21 14:36:40 2006