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

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'"

http://subversion.tigris.org/servlets/ReadMsg?list=dev&msgNo=38694

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