At 11:26 AM 12/18/2006 -0500, C. Michael Pilato wrote:
>Now, the obvious follow-up question is: "What *should* Subversion have
>done in this situation?" Should the revert have errored out saying that
>the operation was obstructed? Should only the delete scheduling have
>been reverted, leaving your new files to appear merely as modifications
>to the existing versioned files? Should a full reversion have happened,
>but with your new files renamed to something else instead of being
>overwritten?
>
>(I'm kinda partial to the second one there -- revert only the delete
>scheduling.)
For what it's worth, as a user, I think I would find it most logical to
treat the new file with the same name as the delete-scheduled file as
non-versioned content, and to display an error that the revert was
obstructed. I also think that --force should be added to this option with
the semantics of replacing the unversioned file with the original
unversioned one (since that seems like a "force"-ful thing to do), and that
possibly an option should be added to simplify making the new file be
treated as a modified version of the original file.
Other things to think about: What does 'svn rm' do if the local file has
modifications? Should it be possible to toggle the delete scheduling in
both directions without actually touching the WC file or its contents?
Jonathan Gilbert
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Mon Dec 18 18:13:26 2006