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

Re: Updating local-moves (was: svn commit: r1301390 ...)

From: Stephen Butler <sbutler_at_elego.de>
Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2012 11:25:03 +0100

On Mar 17, 2012, at 1:14 , Johan Corveleyn wrote:

> On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 10:40 PM, Branko Čibej <brane_at_apache.org> wrote:
>> On 16.03.2012 15:50, Stephen Butler wrote:
>>> Some users do want more control over update (i.e., they trust
>>> Subversion less). Interactive resolution during or after update is an
>>> interesting scenario.
>> s/Some/Many/ :)
> I seriously doubt that. But maybe you're joking :-).
> In my experience, only the most technical users would like to have
> more control like this. And the most technical users amount to ...
> what? ... maybe 1 % of the Subversion user population? Most other
> users just want Subversion to do the right thing, without bothering
> them.
> In my company, of the ~100 colleagues that use subversion, I think
> there might be exactly 1 that would prefer to have more control. I'm
> pretty sure the other 99 would prefer Subversion to do the right thing
> automatically, and leave them alone except if absolutely necessary
> :-).
> Don't git and mercurial and others just apply the changes to wherever
> the code moved to, regardless of the container? Do those users often
> complain about that behavior? (I don't know, it's just a question)

When you run 'git rebase', which is a lot like 'svn update', you aren't
allowed to have any uncommitted changes, so reverting to the prior
state is always possible. Of course, a DVCS has the luxury of local
commits. And they don't have to handle mixed revisions, either.

>> Somewhat off-topic, but "svn update" has the serious problem that it's
>> impossible to revert to the state before the update if one had local
>> changes. Most of these "pick sane defaults" kinds of discussions would
>> become moot if one could have some kind of client-side snapshot that let
>> revert be something more than just an all-or-nothing proposition.
> That's a great suggestion, I agree that would be a very good
> improvement. It would allow to have more control, but only if you need
> it (in case you noticed after the fact that something went wrong, and
> you can back up step by step).

There was talk about a "local commit" feature a while back. I bet most
of the user who like that feature would actually be satisfied by an
'svn undo-update' command.

Received on 2012-03-17 11:25:41 CET

This is an archived mail posted to the Subversion Dev mailing list.