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

Greg Hudson <ghudson@MIT.EDU> writes:

> 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.

Exactly. "Undo" is one of those universal GUI terms that very
specifically reverts only the the *last* action. 'svn undo' creates
an implication that svn is somehow tracking all your actions as a
series of ordered events.

So yeah, I'm -1 on Karl's change as well. I'd much rather go cause
'svn resolve' to leave behind a .mine file, as I suggested earlier.
It's a much smaller change than renaming whole subcommands. Renaming
subcommands (to me) feels like an overreaction to the problem.

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

Ugh, yeah... if people are determined to rename a command, then let's
rename 'resolve', which is used much less often than 'revert'.
"Unconflict" is OK, but sometimes conflicts can be settled ("svn
settle"?).

Whatever. I officially vote for gstein's idea. Just leave a .mine
file behind. A small, simple solution.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Mon Jun 9 16:36:03 2003