Re: svn rm

Dave Neary wrote:
> I was guessing that perhaps svn add followed by svn rm (without a ci) 
> would cause the problem, but I just tested.
> 
> $ touch test
> $ svn add test
> A         test
> 
> $ svn rm test
> svn: Use --force to override this restriction
> svn: 'test' has local modifications
> 
> $ svn revert test
> Reverted 'test'
> 
> $ ls
> test
> $
> 
> However, if I svn rm --force test at step 2, not only does test get 
> removed from versioning, it also gets removed from my sandbox. In this 
> particular case (where there has never been a copy of the file 
> committed), perhaps svn rm (even with --force) should not delete the 
> local copy. That said, you should use svn revert to roll-back an add 
> (this is a difference with cvs, where to roll back a cvs add, you did a 
> cvs rm).

In this scenario, I think the "has local modifications" message, coupled 
with the need to use the --force flag, should be plenty of warning that 
the file is really going to go away.  I don't think Subversion needs to 
provide any further protection.  The philosophy is to never lose local 
changes without the user explicitly authorizing it, and in this case I 
think using the --force flag is the authorization.  It generally means 
"I know what I'm doing, stop protecting me and just do it".

-- 
Michael W Thelen
It is a mistake to think you can solve any major problems just with
potatoes.       -- Douglas Adams

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFBbWgKi2mnNBpOvV0RAtCwAKCgVvYIQYxR1qIVq3TtfbVri3EL8QCg7OsW
+Tr4UtOFbbVyWBKGDUq/feA=
=XVUb
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----