Subject: Re: [boost] [git] neglected aspects
From: Julian Gonggrijp (j.gonggrijp_at_[hidden])
Date: 2012-02-11 14:58:52
Steven Watanabe wrote:
> On 02/11/2012 08:04 AM, Julian Gonggrijp wrote:
>> So if I checkout branch A (only) and I say "svn revert 2", only the
>> files in branch A will be affected because svn understands that I'm
>> not working on other branches. Is that what you're saying?
> Right, although svn revert is the wrong tool.
> svn revert undoes uncommitted changes to the
> working copy.
>> [...] Personally I think history stays as it is -- say at
>> revision 3 -- but that svn replaces the files in my working directory
>> with those from branch A at revision 2. Next I can edit those files or
>> commit them straight away, which would produce revision 4.
>> [...] I'm still inclined to think that if there
>> was such a thing as undoing history in svn, it would always affect the
>> entire repository rather than just your working branch.
> That's true, which is why svn doesn't allow history
> to be changed at all. (Of course, it you have physical
> access to the repository you can delete the most recent
Thanks for all of your clarifications, also in your other response.
(For those who wonder what they mean for the discussion between me
and Julien Nitard: I was right that there is a fundamental difference
between svn and git with regard to branching, while Julien was right
that much of the gitflow branching model can be simulated in svn. I
won't press the matter any more for now.)