Re: why the inconsistency between some svn commands?

On Fri, 5 Aug 2005, Jim Correia wrote:

> 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.

ok, i can accept this. thanks.

rday

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Fri Aug 5 21:30:01 2005