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

Greg Hudson <ghudson@MIT.EDU> writes:
> I dunno, that seems kind of generic. It seems like "svn undo" suggests
> that you could undo lots of things, not just local edits.

I was thinking about that, yeah. But I realized that the same sort of
objection applies to "revert"... Meaning we didn't get any worse, at
any rate.

> > My sense is that we all pretty much agreed that "revert" and "resolve"
> > sometimes get confused, with possibly disastrous results.
>
> I don't really agree. I mean, I'm sure people have done it, but I'm not
> certain that it happens often enough to justify picking less intuitive
> command names.

If the consequences of confusion weren't so awful, then it probably
wouldn't be justified. We do know (from multiple reports) that it
does happen occasionally. I think we have to do something; though it
doesn't necessarily have to be what I did just now.

> I've also never liked the command "svn resolve", since it's kind of a
> lie (the actual operation is something like "mark-resolved", but that's
> unwieldly). So I'd be more tempted to search for alternatives for
> "resolve" than for "revert."

Sure, that might be a better idea... Can you think of any?

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Mon Jun 9 06:31:22 2003