It looses changes of a file NOT RELATED TO UNDO. It is ANOTHER file just missed to be add for commit instead of renamed one. Why the svn does silently erase it just because of the name collision? It is definitely a not good behavior for the svn.On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 03:09:51PM +0300, Andrey wrote:If i'll revert it then i'll LOSE CHANGESOf course. That is the entire point of this command. $ svn help revert revert: Restore pristine working copy state (undo local changes). ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ If that bothers you, then I would suggest you do not use it.
Stefan Sperling <s...@elego.de> писал(а) в своём письме Thu, 18 May 2017
15:52:17 +0300:
- "svn status" does not show unversioned items bee... Andrey
- Re: "svn status" does not show unversioned ... Branko Čibej
- Re: "svn status" does not show unversioned ... Andrey
- Re: "svn status" does not show unversio... Johan Corveleyn
- Re: "svn status" does not show unversioned ... Andrey
- Re: "svn status" does not show unversio... Stefan Sperling
- Re: "svn status" does not show unve... Andrey
- Re: "svn status" does not show ... Stefan Sperling
- Re: "svn status" does not show unversioned ... Andrey
- RE: "svn status" does not show unversio... Bert Huijben
- Re: "svn status" does not show unve... Andrey
- Re: "svn status" does not show ... Daniel Shahaf