Mark Phippard wrote:
> Does anyone consider this a dataloss bug?
>
> $ cat foo
> Original file
> $ svn rm foo
> D foo
> $ echo New file > foo
> $ svn revert foo
> Reverted 'foo'
> $ cat foo
> Original file
>
> Basically, I deleted a file, out a new copy of the file in place, and
> then reverted the delete. The new file was just removed and the
> pristine file put back.
>
> I expected one of the following to happen:
>
> 1) Remove the schedule delete. svn st would now show the file as
> modified. A second revert would get back the pristine file.
> 2) Fail because of an obstruction and require --force. In which case,
> I would get behavior #
I'll answer with another question: what happens if, instead of "svn
revert foo", you say "svn commit foo"? :)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe_at_subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help_at_subversion.tigris.org
Received on 2008-05-08 17:10:36 CEST