Re: Re: Re: svn rollback (Was: Re: svn commit: rev 2162 - ...)

On Wed, Jun 12, 2002 at 11:44:27AM -0700, Bill Tutt wrote:
> > From: Garrett Rooney [mailto:rooneg@electricjellyfish.net]

> > i think we can avoid this problem by being more clear in the 'help'
> > output for each command and sticking with good command names. yes, i
> > had a different idea of what rollback should do that apparently
> > everyone else, but if there had been an 'undo' command, i don't think
> > i would have tried to use 'rollback' to get that functionality.
> >
>
> I'm now not even sure what the difference between undo and revert is. We
> already have a revert command.

ack, that's a good point. i guess 'undo' isn't the appropriate name
for what my initial 'rollback' implementation did. in any event, it
doesn't change the fact that the vast majority of people all had the
same idea about what 'svn rollback' should do, and it just happened
that the one person who felt otherwise was the person who coded it :/

> To turn the issue upside down for a second looking for other options: Is
> there any reason we just couldn't make "update -r N" not change the WCs
> recorded text-base, and entries data? Isn't that what the user probably
> wanted anyway?

now we're opening a whole new can of worms... opinions? i'm not sure
what i think about it.

-garrett

-- 
garrett rooney                    Remember, any design flaw you're 
rooneg@electricjellyfish.net      sufficiently snide about becomes  
http://electricjellyfish.net/     a feature.       -- Dan Sugalski
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org