--On Saturday, August 09, 2003 10:43 AM -0500 Ben Collins-Sussman
<sussman@collab.net> wrote:
> Karl Palsson <kpalsson@cisco.com> writes:
>
>> In a clearcase uncheckout, you have the option of either removing or
>> keeping your modified files. if you choose to remove, the behaviour is
>> as per subversion, if you choose to keep, you get filename.keep and
>> later .keep.2 and .keep.3 and so on.
>>
...
>
> You're not required to use 'svn revert' at all; it's a just a
> convenience for removing local changes. It's not the same as
> "uncheckout", because you never declared the edit to begin with. And
> in a similar vein, you can just manually copy your changed files
> elsewhere before running 'svn revert'.
>
I'd like to point out that the CVS equivalent command to 'svn revert' is
'cvs update -C filename'. This command *does* keep the modified copy
around under a .#filename.version file. Offering the same thing in svn,
while technically only a "convenience" for manually copying the files, is
likely to prevent people being disappointed that their local changes were
lost.
A common use case in my work place (still using CVS for now) is this:
developer is making some experimental changes, gets an urgent call to fix
another problem, updates to HEAD, gets tons of conflicts in the modified
file, runs 'cvs update -C' to get back to a clean copy of the file, fixes
the urgent problem, goes back to sort out what happened in the conflicted
merge. Sure the developer could copy the modified file off before running
'cvs update -C' or 'svn revert', but what if he forgets? With CVS he is
safe (and even already trained not to make the copy); with svn his changes
are lost forever.
-David Mankin
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Sat Aug 9 22:00:20 2003