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

RE: The "entries" file and un-doing an update

From: Dale Worley <dworley_at_pingtel.com>
Date: 2005-03-21 23:01:38 CET

> From: Ben Collins-Sussman [mailto:sussman@collab.net]
> If a user runs
> $ svn up foo.c
> ... and then wants to undo the update, s/he can run 'svn up -rOLD
> foo.c'.
> If a user runs
> $ svn switch newURL foo.c
> ... and then wants to undo the update, s/he can run 'svn
> switch oldURL
> foo.c'.

I don't think either of those will restore the original local modifications,
if there was a conflict. (Hmmm, not that I've checked, but it seems
unlikely, as the update routine would have to check for that case

> But in practice, I've never found the need to do this, ever. When a
> conflict happens, you have all three fulltexts at your
> disposal, if you
> don't want to resolve the conflict markers. Why is it useful
> to 'undo'
> the update? Why not just merge the three fulltexts with
> diff3, or some
> specific tool? I'd like to see some examples.

You could, of course, but I was trying to save users some work.

The case I'm thinking of is where an update touches a lot of lines of many
files in minor (and automatable) ways. In particular, we're replacing tabs
with spaces in a lot of files. I'd like to be able to say to users "If you
get a conflict with this update, roll back the update on the file, apply XYZ
to your copy of it, then update again."

It's not a tremendous improvement. OTOH, it's not a tremendous change to
the WC schema, either.


To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Tue Mar 22 00:36:59 2005

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.