Why do we need this level of detail? Surely the "SVN Book"
explains it better than we can.
If not, then wouldn't it be better to submit a patch to that project.
Sorry if i appear to be jumping on your changes. I am trying
to use your early contributions to provide guidance.
My concerns are that the Forrest Project should not need
to maintain such documentation and rather concentrate on
Forrest topics. Our time gets wasted. For example, i detect
some obscurities in what you wrote.
Also the "tips for developers" document is becoming bloated.
Also ASF Committers should know how to do this stuff
or at least know to refer to the SVN Book.
> Author: gmcdonald
> Date: Sat Aug 26 02:44:52 2006
> New Revision: 437136
> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=437136&view=rev
> Added in revert SVN changes section as per Jira Issue FOR-875
> Modified: forrest/trunk/site-author/content/xdocs/howto-dev.xml
> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/forrest/trunk/site-author/content/xdocs/howto-dev.xml?rev=437136&r1=437135&r2=437136&view=diff
> --- forrest/trunk/site-author/content/xdocs/howto-dev.xml (original)
> +++ forrest/trunk/site-author/content/xdocs/howto-dev.xml Sat Aug 26 02:44:52 2006
> @@ -224,6 +224,63 @@
> svn update -r HEAD.
> + Reverting Changes using SVN Merge
You may want to revert some changes made to HEAD or may want to revert changes made
> + to an earlier revision that still exists in HEAD today.
This is where SVN Merge comes in handy. Taking the first scenario, here is an
> + example of reverting a change from HEAD to an earlier revision 300.
It should only be neccessary to specify a particular file to revert
> + with svn merge only if there are other changed files in that revision.
This second example assumes that way back in revision r303 only one change was
> + made to one file and that this is what we want to remove.
The second example above will revert any changes made by revision 303
> + from revision 302 and then applies it to the current revision HEAD which in
> + this example has become r351. Also note that the changes have NOT been removed
> + from ANY revisions in between r303 and r350, so rolling back to any of these
> + revisions will add the un-needed change back in again.