Re: why the inconsistency between some svn commands?

On Aug 5, 2005, at 3:05 PM, Robert P. J. Day wrote:

> so if i did an update, regretted it and wanted to revert, i'd need
> to:
>
> $ svn update
> $ svn --recursive revert .

Revert does not undo an update.

> which strikes me as non-intuitive. it seems that, for consistency,
> commands should try (as much as possible) to take the same approach
> to defaults. or am i misreading something?

Update will never lose your current working copy changes. A recursive
revert by definition throws away all your working copy changes, so it
is more conservative in its approach.

Jim

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Fri Aug 5 21:20:05 2005