'svn revert' vs. 'svn resolve'

Here's a new bikeshed. Let's hope the ensuing discussion provides
more illumination than heat. ;-)

Issue 1341: somebody accidentally mixed up 'svn resolve' and 'svn
revert'. He had spent 10 minutes editing a conflicted file, and
wanted to tell svn he had resolved the conflict. Instead, he
accidentally destroyed *all* his local mods. Ouch. And he's not the
first person to make this mistake.

Here are the potential solutions:

Solution 1: do nothing. "Don't be a stupid user."

Solution 2: require 'svn revert --force' to revert conflicted files.

           * isn't it a bit harsh to allocate --force for this use-case?

           * wasn't --force supposed to make 'svn revert' restore
             missing directories from the network... someday? (issue 1040)

           * I would argue that 'svn revert conflicted-file' is
             actually performed more often on *purpose* than by
             accident. I use that technique all the time, when I want
             to toss my local mods without editing conflict markers.
             So does that mean folks will just get habituated into
             *always* typing --force? If so, it recreates the problem.

Solution 3: when reverting a conflicted file, leave the already
             existing '.mine' file behind.

           * but now we have extra unversioned files littering the wc,
             even when we legitimately run 'svn revert conflicted-file'.

Thoughts?

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Fri Jun 6 21:15:03 2003