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

Re: feature request: replace with -> base revision

From: Mark Phippard <MarkP_at_softlanding.com>
Date: 2005-08-04 14:44:24 CEST

Brock Janiczak <brockj@tpg.com.au> wrote on 08/04/2005 05:50:40 AM:

> I am both an SVN and CVS user (more CVS than SVN). I tend to
> look under replace with when i want to revert a file (since with CVS you
> replace with latest from head to revert). Most of the world uses CVS at
> moment, so they will be used to the CVS way of doing things. When/if
> move to SVN we want that transition to be as seemless as possible.
Adding a
> replace with base revision action would help their transition.
> The other replace with operations already perform a revert before
updating, so
> i don't think the user would be surprised if they lost stuff (since it
> already doing this). If I replaced a directory, I would expect any
> stuff in it to be removed.
> As for the dialog. To be consistent with the other replace actions, i
> prefer to not display it. The other replace actions display a warning
> there is stuff with local changes. Perhaps we should not be reverting,
> instead updating to the specified version?
> Whetever happens, we should definitely have a revert operation because
as you
> pointed out, that is the SVN terminiology for it. I was merely
> having a different way of doing it (using the CVS terminiology). It
> looks a bit odd having a compare with base, but no replace with.

I am still a bit concerned about not showing the Revert dialog, although I
completely understand your point of view.

Does the CVS plugin have an equivalent option to this? How does it
behave? My biggest concern is that if I have deleted some local files and
not committed them yet, then this option is going to undo the delete. I
am not 100% convinced that would be the expected behavior. If that is
what CVS does, then I withdraw any objections.

As for your consistency argument, isn't a big difference here that they
only operate on a single file, where as this option would operate on an
entire folder or even a project? There is obviously less reason for a
dialog when the operation is on a single file.


Scanned for SoftLanding Systems, Inc. by IBM Email Security Management Services powered by MessageLabs.
Received on Thu Aug 4 22:44:24 2005

This is an archived mail posted to the Subclipse Users mailing list.

This site is subject to the Apache Privacy Policy and the Apache Public Forum Archive Policy.