On Fri, Mar 09, 2012 at 10:45:13AM -0700, Geoff Hoffman wrote: > A couple of things I find interesting... the bug tracker you linked to is 3 > years old and still on tigris.org. Assuming that is still the valid place > for tracking subversion features & bugs?
The issue tracker has not been migrated to apache.org yet. See http://subversion.apache.org/reporting-issues.html#queries The bug is 3 years old because someone had the same feature idea 3 years ago, filed an issue, and nothing has happened since. > Hypothetically speaking, how would svn revert --recursive *--force* PATH be > different/better than svn cleanup *--remove-unversioned-files* PATH (a bit > verbose IMO)? I guess it does make more sense for the proposed feature to > be a switch on svn cleanup. svn revert deletes some unversioned files in certain circumstances. This was recently discussed here: http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.subversion.devel/134154 In my opinion removing unversioned data is not the job of 'svn revert'. It is supposed to roll back the working copy into the state that it was in after the last checkout or update. In other words, it destroys changes made to *versioned* files and directories. Anyway, which subcommand this feature belongs in is a question that should be answered by a concrete design proposal. It doesn't really matter all that much. > This is such great advice. If as many people would give to open source as > take from it, imagine how much richer everything would be? Yes, and the world would be full of flying pigs, too! > I went over to http://subversion.apache.org/download/ and > was surprised there doesn't seem to be an svn checkout option, even read > only? See http://subversion.apache.org/source-code.html (linked from the very bottom of the download page -- perhaps not as easy to find as it should be).
