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

On Sun, 2003-06-08 at 23:46, kfogel@collab.net wrote:
> 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.

I don't agree. I think "undo" suggests "undo the last thing I did" and
"revert" suggests "undo everything I did," which is more consistent with
getting rid of local edits.

> > 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?

Scott suggested "unconflict," which isn't the prettiest of names but
seems fairly descriptive.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Mon Jun 9 16:02:39 2003