On Mar 17, 2012, at 1:14 , Johan Corveleyn wrote: > On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 10:40 PM, Branko Čibej <br...@apache.org> wrote: >> On 16.03.2012 15:50, Stephen Butler wrote: >>> Some users do want more control over update (i.e., they trust >>> Subversion less). Interactive resolution during or after update is an >>> interesting scenario. >> >> s/Some/Many/ :) > > I seriously doubt that. But maybe you're joking :-). > > In my experience, only the most technical users would like to have > more control like this. And the most technical users amount to ... > what? ... maybe 1 % of the Subversion user population? Most other > users just want Subversion to do the right thing, without bothering > them. > > In my company, of the ~100 colleagues that use subversion, I think > there might be exactly 1 that would prefer to have more control. I'm > pretty sure the other 99 would prefer Subversion to do the right thing > automatically, and leave them alone except if absolutely necessary > :-). > > Don't git and mercurial and others just apply the changes to wherever > the code moved to, regardless of the container? Do those users often > complain about that behavior? (I don't know, it's just a question)
When you run 'git rebase', which is a lot like 'svn update', you aren't allowed to have any uncommitted changes, so reverting to the prior state is always possible. Of course, a DVCS has the luxury of local commits. And they don't have to handle mixed revisions, either. > >> Somewhat off-topic, but "svn update" has the serious problem that it's >> impossible to revert to the state before the update if one had local >> changes. Most of these "pick sane defaults" kinds of discussions would >> become moot if one could have some kind of client-side snapshot that let >> revert be something more than just an all-or-nothing proposition. > > That's a great suggestion, I agree that would be a very good > improvement. It would allow to have more control, but only if you need > it (in case you noticed after the fact that something went wrong, and > you can back up step by step). There was talk about a "local commit" feature a while back. I bet most of the user who like that feature would actually be satisfied by an 'svn undo-update' command. Steve
