Re: 'svn revert' vs. 'svn resolve'

On Fri, 2003-06-06 at 15:29, kfogel@collab.net wrote:
> It's true that when you *intend* to revert, you will probably
> habituate to typing '--force'. But that's okay, because you want the
> command to succeed then anyway!

Unless there are other cases where revert really should fail without
--force (there aren't any yet, but there might be in the future), in
which case case the user has disengaged the safety because we added this
inconvenience.

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

That sounds like a bad idea. --force is supposed to override safeties
(checks which would cause the command to fail), not make the command
work harder or otherwise change its functionality.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Fri Jun 6 23:36:40 2003