Re: RFC: Change "revert" behaviour

Greg Stein <gstein@lyra.org> writes:
> Don't be antagonistic, please. I was speaking in reference to revert.
> Not other commands.

He wasn't being antagonistic, he was merely making the most natural
interperation of your mail. You quoted a passage which suggested that
paranoia be common to all wc-crawling subcommands:

> > 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.

...and in response to it, you wrote:

> 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.

Heck, I thought you were talking about all commands, too :-).

Anyway, we went the CVS route a long time ago, with good reason I
think, and depend on timestamps. As Max has already pointed out, the
result here would be to *not* destroy the data, instead of destroying
it. So being unparanoid is (more or less) as safe as being paranoid
in the exceptional case of 'svn revert'.

-Karl

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Mon Nov 29 20:36:54 2004