On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 04:36:47PM +0300, Andrey wrote:
> Stefan Sperling <stsp_at_elego.de> писал(а) в своём письме Thu, 18 May 2017
> 15:52:17 +0300:
>
> > On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 03:09:51PM +0300, Andrey wrote:
> > > If i'll revert it then i'll LOSE CHANGES
> >
> > Of course. That is the entire point of this command.
> >
> > $ svn help revert
> > revert: Restore pristine working copy state (undo local changes).
> > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >
> > If that bothers you, then I would suggest you do not use it.
> It looses changes of a file NOT RELATED TO UNDO. It is ANOTHER file just
> missed to be add for commit instead of renamed one. Why the svn does
> silently erase it just because of the name collision? It is definitely a not
> good behavior for the svn.
The revert operation is supposed to make the working copy look like
the repository. It is a dangerous operation by definition since it
always carries a risk of losing data. No matter what we do.
That said, if other people agree with you that your scenario should
be made a special case, I won't object. But I am not convinced that
such a chance is necessary.
Received on 2017-05-18 15:51:40 CEST