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

Garrett Rooney <rooneg@electricjellyfish.net> writes:

> > 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.

Bad idea. The working copy is supposed to be movable in time and
space. We have two ways of doing this -- one is a *true* move, the
other is just a move only in "local mods".

"True" moves:

  - If you want to move in time, just 'svn up -rN'.
  - If you want to move in time *and* space, use 'svn switch URL -rN'.

"Local mod" moves:

  - Use 'svn merge' for time and space.

There are plenty of use cases for both types of moves. Obviously, the
latter category is good for undoing commits, or porting changes
between branches. The first category is used just when you want to
move to HEAD (people run 'svn up' everyday!), or put part of your wc
on a branch.

Also, if anything, if 'svn up' were moved into the "local mod"
category, it would be *very* confusing to CVS users. Also, there
would be a nasty discrepancy:

  "Let me see. 'svn up -rN' is a local mod only, but 'svn up' is a
  true move to HEAD?"

Ugh.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Wed Jun 12 21:11:13 2002