> "Sander Striker" <striker@apache.org> writes:
>
> > > i believe the current plan is something like that, but there are also
> > > people who disagree, and think that rollback should physically remove
> > > changes from the repository itself. i'm not one of those people, but
> > > they do exist.
> > >
> > > -garrett
> >
> > Actually, that would be quite nice. Saves you from having
> > to muck with a working copy.
> >
> > svn rollback [(<url>|<path>)] [--recursive] <revision>
>
> Sure, the command could build a transaction that has links to 'older'
> nodes, and then do a commit. And no working copy need be in sight.
>
> But I think garrett was talking about people who want to actually
> remove all history of the change from the server. That's a much
> bigger deal; our server is designed to -only- grow right now, it can
> never lose information. The suggestion above simply creates a new
> revision that looks like an older one, rather than truly deleting a
> revision.
Ah. I'd like to hear some arguments in favor of that. At first
glance I feel very negative towards having rollback remove all traces
of a commit completely.
Sander
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Sat Oct 21 14:37:01 2006