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

Re: revert behaviour/documentation

From: <kfogel_at_collab.net>
Date: 2003-11-03 03:08:27 CET

Joe Drew <hoserhead@woot.net> writes:
> revert: Restore pristine working copy file (undo all local edits).
> I take this to mean that svn revert in $ROOT would be the same as svn -r
> $REVISION co path://to/$ROOT, but I've been informed that it should say,
> "undo any scheduling, and any textual/property changes on versioned
> data."
> (I discovered this when I removed a directory and then copied another
> on-top of where it would have been; svn revert left the copy there
> instead of putting the old copy back. This is because "we're simply
> erring on the side of safety.")
> What is the consensus? Should the documentation of svn revert simply be
> changed? Should the documentation be changed, plus a new --dangerous
> flag to revert be added? Should svn revert be changed to act as I
> expected it to?

I think its current behavior is good. To my mind, the current
documentation describes (or at least implies) that behavior... But
perhaps I'm already corrupted by too many years of Subversion

If it said this instead

   revert: Restore pristine of working copy file (undo all local changes)

would that be clearer, or still not enough?


To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Mon Nov 3 03:48:38 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.