cmpilato@collab.net writes:
> > 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 :/
>
> Right. `Undo' was just something I shot off quickly in a mail, not a
> well-thought-out suggestion. And as Garrett mentioned, there has so
> far only been one person (Garrett himself) who has mentioned being
> confused about what rollback means. I think the word itself is fairly
> intuitive, and our definition of what it means (or, should mean)
> aligns with what at least one other tool (VSS) considers a "rollback".
I think I misspoke. I now seem to recall that VSS's rollback might
behave a little differently, that maybe it just deleted from version
history the mods between ROLLBACK_REVISION and HEAD. It's been a
couple years since I used the tool, so sorry if my memory was foggy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Wed Jun 12 21:21:43 2002