Julian Foad wrote:
> [...] To achieve such rollbacks, the user would have to first revert, which
> involves deciding what to revert.
> And that seems OK to me.
The larger point is that this kind of work flow, and the difficulty of
working with changes in overlapping subtrees, is analogous to some
existing techniques. For example, if one tries to use two different
branches to manage two different change-sets, and work with them both in
one WC by switching part of the WC to one branch and another part to
another branch, and the changes involve overlapping subdirectories,
maybe like this...
svn switch "^/branches/#1" A/B
svn switch "^/branches/#2" A/B/F A/D
svn switch "^/branches/#1" A/D/G
... it seems to me that more or less the same issues arise.
Looking more specifically at one of the details, we note that 'svn
switch URL PATH' recursively overrides the current URL on PATH and all
its descendents (hence having to write the above example as three
steps), whereas 'svn update' doesn't, and we have yet to define whether
the proposed 'restore' command would do one or the other or something
different. But if it's broadly analogous it seems reasonable.
Received on 2017-11-10 14:20:17 CET