Re: tree conflicts with replace

Bill Tutt wrote:
> I've always thought that a pending "replace" when reverted should
> decompose into the underlying operations and only revert the non-delete
> operation.
>
> That way the svn status command in your above example would output:
> [[[
> svn st
> D alpha
> ]]]
>
> The idea behind this behavior is the svn command line shouldn't mind
> read the user's intention behind issuing the revert command.
> svn doesn't know if the user wants to revert the delete as well as the add.

'svn revert' has a very clear meaning today, though, which would be muddled
by the behavior you suggest: "restore TARGET to an unmodified state". It's
for this reason that we didn't name the command 'svn undo', which would
imply a stack of reversible operations.

-- 
C. Michael Pilato <cmpilato_at_collab.net>
CollabNet   <>   www.collab.net   <>   Distributed Development On Demand
------------------------------------------------------
http://subversion.tigris.org/ds/viewMessage.do?dsForumId=462&dsMessageId=2383337