>>>> Upon revert, store the local modifications in a hidden file. Offer a
>>>> command "unrevert" (or similar), to restore the local modifications.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I don't follow this logic. Where do we stop the commands? Should we
>>> create an 'svn ununrevert' command too?
>>
>>
>> No. Upon unrevert, try to merge and if neccessary report a conflict. I
>> don't see a possible need for an ununrevert.
>>
>> Unrevert is probably not the best choice of words, but that doesn't
>> hinder the argument.
>>
>>> 'svn revert' is a command whose definition is "permanently destroy
>>> data".
I'm with Ben and want revert to be as simple as possible.
If I say "revert", then I want the file be reverted to my checked out version.
I don't want "revert" to be automatically recursive, because that's dangerous.
Like making rm per default recurse would be very very dangerous.
Leave revert like it is.
It is working well.
And NO - I don't want un-reverts and automatically merges.
(Please work with large sources - you'll appreciate fast responses to you
commands and no magic commands that do stuff behind your back. If you want
to merge, you should do it explicitely.)
Cheers,
Ronny
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Fri Mar 18 18:34:39 2005