[svn.haxx.se] · SVN Dev · SVN Users · SVN Org · TSVN Dev · TSVN Users · Subclipse Dev · Subclipse Users · this month's index

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

From: Jani Averbach <jaa_at_cc.jyu.fi>
Date: 2003-06-10 18:43:22 CEST

On 10 Jun 2003, Greg Hudson wrote:

> Yes, it has. It feels like a terrible semantic to me. "This
> data-destroying operation is deemed more dangerous than all the other
> data-destroying things I do, solely because there's a similar command
> name and you might have mistyped it" seems like it's taken right out of
> the Crazy Spaghetti School of User Interface Design.

Oh dear, +1 on that.

Has anybody thought about that:

junkio@cox.net wrote about arch undo:

" For people who do not know 'arch', it (1) packages all the
  changes you made to your wc and stores it away, and (2) reverts
  all such changes to give you a pristine wc. You can later use
  the information produced by it to do 'arch redo'"


If we have a powerfull enough patch/changeset format and revert will make
a this kind of package when reverting something in wc, then this would be
an ideal solution. At least for me.

And I can live with current resolve/revert, waiting this patch/changeset
format to be materialize, knowing that life is dangerous.

Moreover, settle is better than unconflict. =)

BR, Jani

Jani Averbach
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Tue Jun 10 18:44:17 2003

This is an archived mail posted to the Subversion Dev mailing list.

This site is subject to the Apache Privacy Policy and the Apache Public Forum Archive Policy.