You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@subversion.apache.org by Ben Collins-Sussman <su...@collab.net> on 2003/06/06 19:13:17 UTC
'svn revert' vs. 'svn resolve'
Here's a new bikeshed. Let's hope the ensuing discussion provides
more illumination than heat. ;-)
Issue 1341: somebody accidentally mixed up 'svn resolve' and 'svn
revert'. He had spent 10 minutes editing a conflicted file, and
wanted to tell svn he had resolved the conflict. Instead, he
accidentally destroyed *all* his local mods. Ouch. And he's not the
first person to make this mistake.
Here are the potential solutions:
Solution 1: do nothing. "Don't be a stupid user."
Solution 2: require 'svn revert --force' to revert conflicted files.
* isn't it a bit harsh to allocate --force for this use-case?
* wasn't --force supposed to make 'svn revert' restore
missing directories from the network... someday? (issue 1040)
* I would argue that 'svn revert conflicted-file' is
actually performed more often on *purpose* than by
accident. I use that technique all the time, when I want
to toss my local mods without editing conflict markers.
So does that mean folks will just get habituated into
*always* typing --force? If so, it recreates the problem.
Solution 3: when reverting a conflicted file, leave the already
existing '.mine' file behind.
* but now we have extra unversioned files littering the wc,
even when we legitimately run 'svn revert conflicted-file'.
Thoughts?
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: 'svn revert' vs. 'svn resolve'
Posted by Jack Repenning <jr...@collab.net>.
At 2:13 PM -0500 6/6/03, Ben Collins-Sussman wrote:
>Solution 3: when reverting a conflicted file, leave the already
> existing '.mine' file behind.
>
> * but now we have extra unversioned files littering the wc,
> even when we legitimately run 'svn revert conflicted-file'.
... and provide a "--remove-.mine.file.too" flag (call it what you like).
--
-==-
Jack Repenning
CollabNet, Inc.
8000 Marina Boulevard, Suite 600
Brisbane, California 94015
o: 650.228.2562
c: 408.835-8090
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: 'svn revert' vs. 'svn resolve'
Posted by Chris Stork <cs...@ics.uci.edu>.
On Sun, Jun 08, 2003 at 08:30:44PM -0500, kfogel@collab.net wrote:
> In a fit of anticipatory consensus (or others might call it
> "chest-beating geekismo"), I've changed the command to 'svn undo' in
> revision 6173.
Hmm, to the uninitiated "undo" means undo the last svn command. "abort"
would mean a currently running svn command could be interrupted this
way. Not good either (even though it was my suggestion ;).
But Luke's "abandon" does not have any previous connotations and it
pretty much fits the picture as in "abandon these changes".
[I'll shut up now before I get into the hues.]
--
Chris Stork (PhD student at UC Irvine) http://www.ics.uci.edu/~cstork/
OpenPGP fingerprint: B08B 602C C806 C492 D069 021E 41F3 8C8D 50F9 CA2F
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: 'svn revert' vs. 'svn resolve'
Posted by ju...@cox.net.
>>>>> "kf" == kfogel <kf...@collab.net> writes:
kf> In a fit of anticipatory consensus (or others might call it
kf> "chest-beating geekismo"), I've changed the command to 'svn undo' in
kf> revision 6173.
Could you please reserve the subcommand 'undo' for something
similar to what 'undo' does in 'arch'?
For people who do not know 'arch', it (1) packages all the
changes you made to your wc and stores it away, and (2) reverts
all such changes to give you a pristine wc. You can later use
the information produced by it to do 'arch redo'. It is one of
the things I miss in subversion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: 'svn revert' vs. 'svn resolve'
Posted by Luke Blanshard <lu...@blanshard.us>.
Robert Pluim wrote:
>kfogel@collab.net writes:
> > If the consequences of confusion weren't so awful, then it probably
> > wouldn't be justified. We do know (from multiple reports) that it
> > does happen occasionally. I think we have to do something; though it
> > doesn't necessarily have to be what I did just now.
>
>If you don't know what your tools do, changing their names won't help.
>I never confuse svn revert & svn resolve, since I know what they do,
>and the mere fact that they share their first two letters doesn't
>confuse me.</brane> [1]
>
I think it's probably more than just the first two letters. They're
both fairly unusual two-syllable words that share their first syllable,
used to label two fairly unusual subcommands that do mysterious things
to your working copy.
This is a case where, taken individually, the subcommand names are good.
But taken collectively, these two are confusing. Looking at the names,
I can probably figure out what they do, more or less. But knowing that
I have to fix a file's conflict marker, and having to remember the
subcommand name that does that, I might well come up with "revert"
instead of "resolve".
Naturally, this is not confusing to your "power user". But we have
empirical evidence that it is confusing to some -- we can't ignore that
evidence because it doesn't apply to us.
People keep calling this a bikeshed issue, but the presence of empirical
evidence means it is not. (Unless you expand on the meaning of
bikeshed: "The bikeshed and the incinerator are the same size and color,
and people keep getting their bikes burned up!") What is a bikeshed
issue, to some degree, is what words to use to resolve the problem.
>I'm -1 on svn undo as well, since it's too generic a name. revert
>clearly indicates to me that you're reverting a file, whereas 'undo'
>could mean undoing a whole host of things.
>
I think "undo" is pretty good, actually. It fits well with the common
use of "undo" in UIs, meaning, throw out some of my work. Given that
you have to supply a file to say what work to throw out, it seems pretty
unambiguous. Better than abort or abandon, IMO. And more widely used
in UIs than "revert", so more likely to be understood easily.
Greg's remark that "resolve" is not a precise description of what it
does is an excellent point. I think that "mark-resolved" would be a
good choice too. Or "clear-conflict" -- but that runs up against
"cleanup". I don't think we should be too concerned about unwieldiness
of individual subcommands, though this is clearly a departure from the
current list of commands. But I think that clarity and individuality of
the commands beats consistency of naming -- it's much more important
that common confusions be addressed than that the list of subcommand
names look pretty.
Changing "revert" to "undo", or "resolve" to "mark-resolved" -- either
of these would work for me.
Luke
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: 'svn revert' vs. 'svn resolve'
Posted by Robert Pluim <rp...@bigfoot.com>.
kfogel@collab.net writes:
> Robert Pluim <rp...@bigfoot.com> writes:
> > If you don't know what your tools do, changing their names won't help.
> > I never confuse svn revert & svn resolve, since I know what they do,
> > and the mere fact that they share their first two letters doesn't
> > confuse me.</brane> [1]
>
> Did you take my advice from my original mail? :-)
Yes, and it's a valid point. As to what I wrote, next time I'll wrap
it in <hardline attitude, don't take it _too_ seriously>.
> > for anyone who doubts the likelihood of the two commands getting
> > confused, I politely draw your attention to the portion of the change
> > in subversion/tests/clients/cmdline/update_tests.py.
>
> I'm happy to consider other command names, for either "revert" or
> "resolve". But asserting that people won't confuse them is, at this
> point, empirically false. One might be tempted to respond "Such users
> get what they deserve", but I've misinvoked enough commands in my life
> to be wary of doling out punishment to the clueless.
I never asserted that people would never confuse them, just that lack
of knowledge about what they do might cause people to do so. Perhaps
changing the name of one of them might make that confusion less
likely.
Oh well, this is starting to look like a bikeshed and I can't really
bring myself to care deeply about what the new names should be,
although 'unconflict' for 'resolve' is kind of catchy.
Robert
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: 'svn revert' vs. 'svn resolve'
Posted by kf...@collab.net.
Robert Pluim <rp...@bigfoot.com> writes:
> If you don't know what your tools do, changing their names won't help.
> I never confuse svn revert & svn resolve, since I know what they do,
> and the mere fact that they share their first two letters doesn't
> confuse me.</brane> [1]
Did you take my advice from my original mail? :-)
> for anyone who doubts the likelihood of the two commands getting
> confused, I politely draw your attention to the portion of the change
> in subversion/tests/clients/cmdline/update_tests.py.
I'm happy to consider other command names, for either "revert" or
"resolve". But asserting that people won't confuse them is, at this
point, empirically false. One might be tempted to respond "Such users
get what they deserve", but I've misinvoked enough commands in my life
to be wary of doling out punishment to the clueless.
I'm glad you "never confuse" the two commands, but consider: the
particular instance of confusion referred to above was originally
committed in revision 1845, by one of our most clueful developers,
Philip Martin. That ought to give anyone pause, IMHO.
-Karl
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: 'svn revert' vs. 'svn resolve'
Posted by Robert Pluim <rp...@bigfoot.com>.
kfogel@collab.net writes:
> If the consequences of confusion weren't so awful, then it probably
> wouldn't be justified. We do know (from multiple reports) that it
> does happen occasionally. I think we have to do something; though it
> doesn't necessarily have to be what I did just now.
If you don't know what your tools do, changing their names won't help.
I never confuse svn revert & svn resolve, since I know what they do,
and the mere fact that they share their first two letters doesn't
confuse me.</brane> [1]
I'm -1 on svn undo as well, since it's too generic a name. revert
clearly indicates to me that you're reverting a file, whereas 'undo'
could mean undoing a whole host of things.
Robert
Footnotes:
[1] I wonder, is this happening because people are using
auto-completion on the svn sub-commands?
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: 'svn revert' vs. 'svn resolve'
Posted by Ben Collins-Sussman <su...@collab.net>.
Greg Hudson <gh...@MIT.EDU> writes:
> I don't agree. I think "undo" suggests "undo the last thing I did" and
> "revert" suggests "undo everything I did," which is more consistent with
> getting rid of local edits.
Exactly. "Undo" is one of those universal GUI terms that very
specifically reverts only the the *last* action. 'svn undo' creates
an implication that svn is somehow tracking all your actions as a
series of ordered events.
So yeah, I'm -1 on Karl's change as well. I'd much rather go cause
'svn resolve' to leave behind a .mine file, as I suggested earlier.
It's a much smaller change than renaming whole subcommands. Renaming
subcommands (to me) feels like an overreaction to the problem.
> Scott suggested "unconflict," which isn't the prettiest of names but
> seems fairly descriptive.
Ugh, yeah... if people are determined to rename a command, then let's
rename 'resolve', which is used much less often than 'revert'.
"Unconflict" is OK, but sometimes conflicts can be settled ("svn
settle"?).
Whatever. I officially vote for gstein's idea. Just leave a .mine
file behind. A small, simple solution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: 'svn revert' vs. 'svn resolve'
Posted by cm...@collab.net.
Greg Hudson <gh...@MIT.EDU> writes:
> On Sun, 2003-06-08 at 23:46, kfogel@collab.net wrote:
> > Greg Hudson <gh...@MIT.EDU> writes:
> > > I dunno, that seems kind of generic. It seems like "svn undo" suggests
> > > that you could undo lots of things, not just local edits.
> >
> > I was thinking about that, yeah. But I realized that the same sort of
> > objection applies to "revert"... Meaning we didn't get any worse, at
> > any rate.
>
> I don't agree. I think "undo" suggests "undo the last thing I did" and
> "revert" suggests "undo everything I did," which is more consistent with
> getting rid of local edits.
Sorry to join the party so late, but ghudson is echoing my exact
sentiments. -1 on 'svn undo'. 'Revert' very accurately captures the
sense of the operation. It's 'resolve' that I would change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: 'svn revert' vs. 'svn resolve'
Posted by Greg Hudson <gh...@MIT.EDU>.
On Sun, 2003-06-08 at 23:46, kfogel@collab.net wrote:
> Greg Hudson <gh...@MIT.EDU> writes:
> > I dunno, that seems kind of generic. It seems like "svn undo" suggests
> > that you could undo lots of things, not just local edits.
>
> I was thinking about that, yeah. But I realized that the same sort of
> objection applies to "revert"... Meaning we didn't get any worse, at
> any rate.
I don't agree. I think "undo" suggests "undo the last thing I did" and
"revert" suggests "undo everything I did," which is more consistent with
getting rid of local edits.
> > I've also never liked the command "svn resolve", since it's kind of a
> > lie (the actual operation is something like "mark-resolved", but that's
> > unwieldly). So I'd be more tempted to search for alternatives for
> > "resolve" than for "revert."
>
> Sure, that might be a better idea... Can you think of any?
Scott suggested "unconflict," which isn't the prettiest of names but
seems fairly descriptive.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: 'svn revert' vs. 'svn resolve'
Posted by kf...@collab.net.
Greg Hudson <gh...@MIT.EDU> writes:
> I dunno, that seems kind of generic. It seems like "svn undo" suggests
> that you could undo lots of things, not just local edits.
I was thinking about that, yeah. But I realized that the same sort of
objection applies to "revert"... Meaning we didn't get any worse, at
any rate.
> > My sense is that we all pretty much agreed that "revert" and "resolve"
> > sometimes get confused, with possibly disastrous results.
>
> I don't really agree. I mean, I'm sure people have done it, but I'm not
> certain that it happens often enough to justify picking less intuitive
> command names.
If the consequences of confusion weren't so awful, then it probably
wouldn't be justified. We do know (from multiple reports) that it
does happen occasionally. I think we have to do something; though it
doesn't necessarily have to be what I did just now.
> I've also never liked the command "svn resolve", since it's kind of a
> lie (the actual operation is something like "mark-resolved", but that's
> unwieldly). So I'd be more tempted to search for alternatives for
> "resolve" than for "revert."
Sure, that might be a better idea... Can you think of any?
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: 'svn revert' vs. 'svn resolve'
Posted by Jack Repenning <jr...@collab.net>.
How about "svn revert" and "svn deconflict"?
--
-==-
Jack Repenning
CollabNet, Inc.
8000 Marina Boulevard, Suite 600
Brisbane, California 94015
o: 650.228.2562
c: 408.835-8090
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: 'svn revert' vs. 'svn resolve'
Posted by Ben Collins-Sussman <su...@collab.net>.
Greg Hudson <gh...@MIT.EDU> writes:
> On Mon, 2003-06-09 at 13:46, Brian Denny wrote:
> > This is ok with me, but i wonder why there has been no discussion of
> > sussman's suggestion to leave the command names as they are, and just
> > leave behind a .mine file when reverting a conflict?
>
> I don't see why conflicts should get special status for revert [...]
Because if somebody runs "svn revert conflicted-file", there's a
non-negligible possibility that they really meant to run "svn resolve"
instead. Thus: conflicted files get treated specially by 'revert'.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: 'svn revert' vs. 'svn resolve'
Posted by Greg Hudson <gh...@MIT.EDU>.
On Mon, 2003-06-09 at 13:46, Brian Denny wrote:
> This is ok with me, but i wonder why there has been no discussion of
> sussman's suggestion to leave the command names as they are, and just
> leave behind a .mine file when reverting a conflict?
I don't see why conflicts should get special status for revert, and I
don't like the idea of revert littering stuff around the working
directory. I'm -0 on this idea.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: 'svn revert' vs. 'svn resolve'
Posted by Robert Pluim <rp...@bigfoot.com>.
Brian Denny writes:
> On Mon, Jun 09, 2003 at 11:06:45AM -0500, kfogel@collab.net wrote:
> >
> > $ svn unconflict
> >
> > seems like the best option so far. Anyone -1 on this, or have a
> > better idea?
>
> This is ok with me, but i wonder why there has been no discussion of
> sussman's suggestion to leave the command names as they are, and just
> leave behind a .mine file when reverting a conflict?
Hmm, ok. As long as it's a .mine.N if you svn revert more than once.
Robert
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: 'svn revert' vs. 'svn resolve'
Posted by Brian Denny <br...@briandenny.net>.
On Mon, Jun 09, 2003 at 11:06:45AM -0500, kfogel@collab.net wrote:
>
> $ svn unconflict
>
> seems like the best option so far. Anyone -1 on this, or have a
> better idea?
This is ok with me, but i wonder why there has been no discussion of
sussman's suggestion to leave the command names as they are, and just
leave behind a .mine file when reverting a conflict?
-brian
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: 'svn revert' vs. 'svn resolve'
Posted by Stefan Monnier <mo...@rum.cs.yale.edu>.
> $ svn unconflict
`svn mergedone'
Stefan
PS: with all those postings, it looks like this bikeshed is going to be
outstandingly beautiful.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: 'svn revert' vs. 'svn resolve'
Posted by Robert Pluim <rp...@bigfoot.com>.
Bill Newcomb writes:
> kfogel@collab.net writes:
>
> Actually I think that's kind of nice. I also liked Sussman's
> suggestion of 'svn settle'. Even though some knucklehead would at some
> point ask, "what is a tle, and why does setting it fix the wc?"
Why, it's "The Last Edit", of course ;-)
Robert
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: 'svn revert' vs. 'svn resolve'
Posted by Bill Newcomb <nu...@juniper.net>.
kfogel@collab.net writes:
> Okay, I reverted the 'svn undo' change, thanks for all the feedback.
>
> My favorite solution now would be to rename 'svn resolve' instead, as
> some have suggested, since 'resolve' has never been all that intuitive
> anyway, and changing the name beats littering the wc with safety
> files, IMHO. Ungainly as it is,
>
> $ svn unconflict
>
> seems like the best option so far. Anyone -1 on this, or have a
> better idea?
>
> (There's also 'svn harmonize', but I guess that'd never fly... :-) ).
Actually I think that's kind of nice. I also liked Sussman's
suggestion of 'svn settle'. Even though some knucklehead would at some
point ask, "what is a tle, and why does setting it fix the wc?"
Cheers,
-B.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: 'svn revert' vs. 'svn resolve'
Posted by kf...@collab.net.
Okay, I reverted the 'svn undo' change, thanks for all the feedback.
My favorite solution now would be to rename 'svn resolve' instead, as
some have suggested, since 'resolve' has never been all that intuitive
anyway, and changing the name beats littering the wc with safety
files, IMHO. Ungainly as it is,
$ svn unconflict
seems like the best option so far. Anyone -1 on this, or have a
better idea?
(There's also 'svn harmonize', but I guess that'd never fly... :-) ).
-Karl
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: 'svn revert' vs. 'svn resolve'
Posted by Scott Collins <sc...@ScottCollins.net>.
On Monday, June 9, 2003, at 12:04 AM, Greg Hudson wrote:
> So I'd be more tempted to search for alternatives for
> "resolve" than for "revert."
Other possibilties for resolve:
svn no-conflict
svn unconflict
As for revert, I agree with Greg; but if it _had_ to change then I like
abandon and dislike undo (though with comparatively little svn
experience, my opinion may not be worth much).
__________
Scott Collins <http://ScottCollins.net/>
Re: 'svn revert' vs. 'svn resolve'
Posted by Greg Hudson <gh...@MIT.EDU>.
On Sun, 2003-06-08 at 21:30, kfogel@collab.net wrote:
> In a fit of anticipatory consensus (or others might call it
> "chest-beating geekismo"), I've changed the command to 'svn undo' in
> revision 6173.
I dunno, that seems kind of generic. It seems like "svn undo" suggests
that you could undo lots of things, not just local edits.
> My sense is that we all pretty much agreed that "revert" and "resolve"
> sometimes get confused, with possibly disastrous results.
I don't really agree. I mean, I'm sure people have done it, but I'm not
certain that it happens often enough to justify picking less intuitive
command names.
I've also never liked the command "svn resolve", since it's kind of a
lie (the actual operation is something like "mark-resolved", but that's
unwieldly). So I'd be more tempted to search for alternatives for
"resolve" than for "revert."
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
RE: 'svn revert' vs. 'svn resolve'
Posted by M Price <ma...@yahoo.com>.
--- Sander Striker <st...@apache.org> wrote:
> Please revert that commit. At least until we have some final
> concensus
> on what we are going to use. 'revert' is pretty much hardwired in
> for
> me and rewiring it to 'undo' will go with some curses. I don't
> want
> to need to go through that again next time someone feels it isn't
> the
> good command name.
>
> As for 'undo', I'm -0 on it, since I feel it's meaning is even
> wider
> scoped that revert.
Well, everyone else is giving their $.02 so I will as well. I think
the revert -> undo change should be reverted. The meaning of revert
isn't vague. If anything, its resolve that is vague. When I first
started looking at the svn subcommands I didn't have to look up the
meaning of revert but I DID have to look up resolve.
Unfortunately I can't seem to come up with a good alternative word
for resolve.
Michael
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
RE: 'svn revert' vs. 'svn resolve'
Posted by Sander Striker <st...@apache.org>.
> From: kfogel@newton.ch.collab.net [mailto:kfogel@newton.ch.collab.net]On
> Behalf Of kfogel@collab.net
> In a fit of anticipatory consensus (or others might call it
> "chest-beating geekismo"), I've changed the command to 'svn undo' in
> revision 6173.
Please revert that commit. At least until we have some final concensus
on what we are going to use. 'revert' is pretty much hardwired in for
me and rewiring it to 'undo' will go with some curses. I don't want
to need to go through that again next time someone feels it isn't the
good command name.
As for 'undo', I'm -0 on it, since I feel it's meaning is even wider
scoped that revert.
> My sense is that we all pretty much agreed that "revert" and "resolve"
> sometimes get confused,
I really don't understand the confusion. The only thing in common are
the first two letters. The meaning is totally different. What happens
if we add more commands that start with 're'?
recover
redo
[retrofit]
...
> with possibly disastrous results. I'll happily revert the change if this
> turns out to be controversial --
Please do.
> but for anyone who doubts the likelihood of the two commands getting
> confused, I politely draw your attention to the portion of the change
> in subversion/tests/clients/cmdline/update_tests.py.
That could very well be a leftover from a copy-paste. It isn't proof that
the confusion happens a lot.
Sander
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: 'svn revert' vs. 'svn resolve'
Posted by Tim Klauck <kl...@mac.com>.
I think "undo" is much better and easier to understand.
Tim
On Montag, Juni 9, 2003, at 03:30 Uhr, kfogel@collab.net wrote:
> In a fit of anticipatory consensus (or others might call it
> "chest-beating geekismo"), I've changed the command to 'svn undo' in
> revision 6173.
>
> My sense is that we all pretty much agreed that "revert" and "resolve"
> sometimes get confused, with possibly disastrous results. I'll
> happily revert the change if this turns out to be controversial -- but
> for anyone who doubts the likelihood of the two commands getting
> confused, I politely draw your attention to the portion of the change
> in subversion/tests/clients/cmdline/update_tests.py.
>
> -Karl
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: 'svn revert' vs. 'svn resolve'
Posted by kf...@collab.net.
In a fit of anticipatory consensus (or others might call it
"chest-beating geekismo"), I've changed the command to 'svn undo' in
revision 6173.
My sense is that we all pretty much agreed that "revert" and "resolve"
sometimes get confused, with possibly disastrous results. I'll
happily revert the change if this turns out to be controversial -- but
for anyone who doubts the likelihood of the two commands getting
confused, I politely draw your attention to the portion of the change
in subversion/tests/clients/cmdline/update_tests.py.
-Karl
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: 'svn revert' vs. 'svn resolve'
Posted by Luke Blanshard <lu...@blanshard.us>.
Chris Stork wrote:
>On Fri, Jun 06, 2003 at 02:13:17PM -0500, Ben Collins-Sussman wrote:
>
>
>>Here's a new bikeshed. Let's hope the ensuing discussion provides
>>more illumination than heat. ;-)
>>
>>Issue 1341: somebody accidentally mixed up 'svn resolve' and 'svn
>>revert'.
>>
>>
>
>Easy solution, don't make them sound/look alike. So rename:
>
> svn revert --> svn abort
>
>"abort" emphasizes the destructive nature and does not look like any
>other svn command (yet?).
>
>
I'm with Chris here. The real problem is the similarity of these two
uncommon subcommands.
Another possible replacement for "svn revert" would be "svn abandon". I
can't think of any alternatives for "svn resolve".
Luke
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: 'svn revert' vs. 'svn resolve'
Posted by Chris Stork <cs...@ics.uci.edu>.
On Fri, Jun 06, 2003 at 02:13:17PM -0500, Ben Collins-Sussman wrote:
>
> Here's a new bikeshed. Let's hope the ensuing discussion provides
> more illumination than heat. ;-)
>
> Issue 1341: somebody accidentally mixed up 'svn resolve' and 'svn
> revert'.
Easy solution, don't make them sound/look alike. So rename:
svn revert --> svn abort
"abort" emphasizes the destructive nature and does not look like any
other svn command (yet?).
[I know this is becoming increasingly bikesheddy, but I think it's a
reasonable change which, if at all, should be performed before 1.0.]
--
Chris Stork (PhD student at UC Irvine) http://www.ics.uci.edu/~cstork/
OpenPGP fingerprint: B08B 602C C806 C492 D069 021E 41F3 8C8D 50F9 CA2F
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
RE: 'svn revert' vs. 'svn resolve'
Posted by Sander Striker <st...@apache.org>.
> From: sussman@collab.net [mailto:sussman@collab.net]
> Sent: Friday, June 06, 2003 10:28 PM
> Branko Čibej <br...@xbc.nu> writes:
>
> G> Ben Collins-Sussman wrote:
> >
> > >Here's a new bikeshed. Let's hope the ensuing discussion provides
> > >more illumination than heat. ;-)
> > >
> > [...]
> >
> > >Thoughts?
> > >
> > >
> > Mark as RESOLVED WONTFIX with a comment of "RTFM". If you use the
> > command line, learn your commands. Otherwise use a GUI.
>
> I see you like option #1 then. ;-)
I really like option #1 too. +1 on Brane's suggestion.
Sander
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: 'svn revert' vs. 'svn resolve'
Posted by Ben Collins-Sussman <su...@collab.net>.
Branko Čibej <br...@xbc.nu> writes:
G> Ben Collins-Sussman wrote:
>
> >Here's a new bikeshed. Let's hope the ensuing discussion provides
> >more illumination than heat. ;-)
> >
> [...]
>
> >Thoughts?
> >
> >
> Mark as RESOLVED WONTFIX with a comment of "RTFM". If you use the
> command line, learn your commands. Otherwise use a GUI.
I see you like option #1 then. ;-)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: 'svn revert' vs. 'svn resolve'
Posted by Branko Čibej <br...@xbc.nu>.
Ben Collins-Sussman wrote:
>Here's a new bikeshed. Let's hope the ensuing discussion provides
>more illumination than heat. ;-)
>
[...]
>Thoughts?
>
>
Mark as RESOLVED WONTFIX with a comment of "RTFM". If you use the
command line, learn your commands. Otherwise use a GUI.
--
Brane Čibej <br...@xbc.nu> http://www.xbc.nu/brane/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: 'svn revert' vs. 'svn resolve'
Posted by Greg Hudson <gh...@MIT.EDU>.
On Fri, 2003-06-06 at 15:29, kfogel@collab.net wrote:
> It's true that when you *intend* to revert, you will probably
> habituate to typing '--force'. But that's okay, because you want the
> command to succeed then anyway!
Unless there are other cases where revert really should fail without
--force (there aren't any yet, but there might be in the future), in
which case case the user has disengaged the safety because we added this
inconvenience.
Earlier, Ben wrote:
> * wasn't --force supposed to make 'svn revert' restore
> missing directories from the network... someday? (issue 1040)
That sounds like a bad idea. --force is supposed to override safeties
(checks which would cause the command to fail), not make the command
work harder or otherwise change its functionality.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: 'svn revert' vs. 'svn resolve'
Posted by kf...@collab.net.
Ben Collins-Sussman <su...@collab.net> writes:
> * I would argue that 'svn revert conflicted-file' is
> actually performed more often on *purpose* than by
> accident. I use that technique all the time, when I want
> to toss my local mods without editing conflict markers.
> So does that mean folks will just get habituated into
> *always* typing --force? If so, it recreates the problem.
This objection doesn't hold -- habituation to the correct command
won't cause habituation to the incorrect command, if the two habits
(key sequences) are different.
Consider: if you accidentally type "revert" when you meant to type
"resolve", you won't also pass --force (because resolve doesn't
require that, and you thought you were resolving). Thus, when the
command fails because you didn't pass '--force', that's your signal
that you didn't type the command you meant to type. Disaster
prevented.
It's true that when you *intend* to revert, you will probably
habituate to typing '--force'. But that's okay, because you want the
command to succeed then anyway!
Brought to you by the Committee To Make Habituation Not Automatically
Synonymous With Evil When Discussing User Interfaces,
-K
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: 'svn revert' vs. 'svn resolve'
Posted by Brian Denny <br...@briandenny.net>.
On Fri, Jun 06, 2003 at 02:13:17PM -0500, Ben Collins-Sussman wrote:
>
> Solution 3: when reverting a conflicted file, leave the already
> existing '.mine' file behind.
>
> * but now we have extra unversioned files littering the wc,
> even when we legitimately run 'svn revert conflicted-file'.
... which could then be cleaned up by running "svn resolve", ya?
sounds good to me.
-brian
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org