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

Re: RFC: Change "revert" behaviour

From: Max Bowsher <maxb_at_ukf.net>
Date: 2004-11-29 17:03:40 CET

kfogel@collab.net wrote:
> "Max Bowsher" <maxb@ukf.net> writes:
>> "svn revert" is dreadfully slow, because (IIUC) it's checksumming
>> every file, despite the fact that svn would usually deem a timestamp
>> match to be sufficient.
>> I think this is overly pedantic. It really kills the usefulness of
>> revert, when you are trying out lots of merges - for example, when
>> reviewing backports.
>> I've just thrown together a little script to run "svn status", and
>> individually invoke "svn revert" on the changed items - but my point
>> is that I shouldn't *have* to do that.
>> Therefore I propose making "svn revert" use the same strength of
>> modified checks as elsewhere, possibly with an option to restore the
>> paranoid behaviour if desired.
>> Thoughts?
> +1
> I think we never thought about 'revert' as a time-sensitive operation.
> But you are living proof that the constant time penalty hurts.
> (Would --force be the paranoia flag?)

I don't think that would make sense. After all, this isn't "do what I say
even though it might be dangerous", it's more "spend extra time making
absolutely sure".

If we do want a paranoid-comparison flag at all (do we?), there's no reason
for it not to be common to *all* subcommands which crawl a WC.


To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Mon Nov 29 17:07:07 2004

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.