[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 17:43:11 CET

Greg Stein wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 29, 2004 at 04:03:40PM -0000, Max Bowsher wrote:
>> ...
>>> (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".
> Agreed.
>> 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.
> Make paranoid the default. We always want to choose safe defaults. If
> somebody wants a bit more speed at the cost of "not [necessarily] as
> safe", then they can use a flag.

I have to disagree. If we followed that argument, we would want to make the
always-checksum behaviour the default for commit and diff and all the others

> In this particular case, the person doing the merges knows there
> aren't any local mods, so they could do something like:
> $ svn revert --skip-safety-checks --recursive .

No, no. It's not about whether there are local mods or not. It's about the
weird edge case that there might be local mods, but the file time is still
equal to that reported in the .svn/entries file.

Since we don't consider that important for other subcommands, why should
revert be special?


To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Mon Nov 29 17:45:15 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.