subversion-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Bob Archer <>
Subject RE: Reverting an ADD status file after an update tree conflict deletes the file
Date Mon, 14 Oct 2013 19:48:24 GMT
> On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 9:26 PM, Bob Archer <>
> wrote:
> >> On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 9:08 PM, Bob Archer <>
> >> wrote:
> >> > Bert,
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > But, this isn't a merge it is an update. If I revert the add I lose
> >> > all the changes I made in step 1 of my steps below. I might have
> >> > made a few hundred changes. Granted, I probably shouldn't do the
> >> > revert without copying the file off somewhere... but those local
> >> > modifications I made are NOWHERE in this case and can't be
> >> > recovered if my local copy of
> >> the file is deleted.
> >> >
> >>
> >> But, but ... isn't 'revert' always a lossy operation? If you revert a
> >> locally modified file you also lose your local modifications.
> >
> > But, but, shouldn't then a revert, revert back to the pristine of my working
> copy, which is the local file without my modifications? I'm not even seeing
> that, which would somewhat make sense in my head.
> That's indeed pretty strange. I didn't realize that. But even then you would
> have lost your local changes, no?

Indeed. But, then I would have slapped my head and said, "Self (that's what I call myself),
it just did what you told it to do." ;) 

Once again though, to repeat, I am 100% used to when reverting an ADD the file isn't removed.
My tiny brain doesn't know ADD from ADD with History from a black hole.

> >> OK, if you revert a normal 'add', svn will keep the local file. But
> >> as Bert said, if you revert an 'add with history' (A +), which seems
> >> to be the case here, svn will just throw away whatever is there,
> >> exactly like when you revert a Modified file.
> >>
> >> There is no "revert only the add, but keep the local mods" operation.
> >
> > Ok, but bottom line... subversion has TRASHED my local changes. This was
> really surprised me, and in a bad way. Granted, I only found this in a test and
> didn't actually lose important modifications.
> >
> You asked it to trash you local changes. That's precisely what revert is for.
> Ok, I think the underlying problem is that svn currently does a lousy job at
> helping users resolve tree conflicts. You're really on your own, and have to
> improvise. Perhaps it's not even possible to resolve this kind of tree conflict
> with standard commands (without moving the modified file aside, and
> moving it back etc). So I can perfectly imagine that you get misled into trying
> 'revert' to get out of the nasty situation. All I can suggest at this time is: never
> revert something if it still contains uncommitted changes. If you're unsure
> what will happen, make a backup copy of your local mods first.

Perhaps. If there were a true life issue I might have said... no, that file was deleted for
a reason, so I don't want to re-add it, I want to take my code changes and apply them in the
correct new place. So, I'll just revert this "ADD" (which I know from past experience will
just keep my local file) and find the correct place to apply these changes... NOOOO... that
algorithm I spend 4 hours on is gone... DAMN YOU NEWMAN!!! (I mean subversion!)


View raw message