On 02/29/2012 03:46 PM, Julian Foad wrote:
>> You are explicitly reverting x, are you saying revert should fail? My
>> first instinct is that revert is doing the right thing.
>
> Agreed. "revert" means "revert to the base state", so that's as expected. Did you (or the user) mean to run "svn resolve --accept=mine" instead?
I'd have expected an obstructed state.
See, I had a local file. During update, a dir came in at that path.
The result is that the upstream dir is marked deleted in my WC.
I don't want to delete the upstream dir.
So I say 'revert', and if I forgot to move the file away first, then it will
be gone beyond any chance to get it back.
My impression was that svn tries to leave unversioned data around until the
user takes care of it (as with 'svn delete dir'). That's what I thought
obstructed states are for.
Well, if you guys all agree that revert should be this aggressive, fine,
won't push it. IIRC stsp made revert kill locally added files, e.g. for
undoing a merge. That's where revert is also aggressive... fair enough.
~Neels
Received on 2012-02-29 16:07:49 CET