Thank you for your detailed reply.
Ok, finally, I found out how to do it.
We need to use 'svn update -r<n>' in order to get back to version n.
My concern was, that just 'svn update' will always tell us, that
we are at the revision n, even we locally modified files.
Inconsistency seems to be a problem. Also, we need to know the last revision
number, which is not obvious and require additional things to do.
It would be natural, if 'svn update' could just revert us to the latest
Certainly, we can remove some files and make 'svn update' find what to do,
but imagine how dangerous it is in case of lots of files.
'svn revert' seems to be good, but it doesn't check the repository. So,
if repository has changes, this command cannot tell us, therefore we need
to use 'svn update' together with it.
What I want to say (just from user perspective), that it could be
good, that these commands will work more clear, because right now
it is so easy to forget something to check, and then lose the files.
--- "\\François\\ Beausoleil " <email@example.com> wrote:
> Dmitry, please keep all replies on-list.
> Dmitry Lumpov said the following on 2005-05-26 17:09:
> > Hi, François
> > yes, revert is good, but I want to have the same function as in VSS
> > (Getlatestversion), meaning, that svn should explore my working directory,
> > changed files(diff), and update changed files to the version from
> I'm sorry, but I don't have any experience with VSS. From what I read
> here, this is exactly what "svn update" does.
> > 'svn revert' is not good for that, since it works with local copies, and I
> > explicitly state which files I want to revert. This is not convenient for
> > if I have lots of files and directories.
> svn revert undoes any changes you made to your working copy files,
> without going to the network.
> > from the other side to make svn update work I can remove the file I want,
> > then it will be downloaded from the repository. This is not convenient too,
> > because again I need to state what I want to update explicitly.
> svn update without a path will update recursively from the current
> directory all the way down.
> > I understood, that 'svn update' command should work as 'svn status'
> > but the only difference is that it should actually copy all the changed
> > from the repository to working copy to restore particular subversion.
> Wrong. svn status tells you status information about the files in your
> working copy. svn update requests the latest changes from the server.
> Very different operations.
> > What do you think? May be you can tell me how to do GetlatestVersion in
> I think you should show us a transcript of what you believe is wrong,
> and tell us what you expected. Then, we'll know what to tell you.
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new Resources site
To unsubscribe, e-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org
For additional commands, e-mail: email@example.com
Received on Tue May 31 21:01:57 2005