On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 04:36:47PM +0300, Andrey wrote: > Stefan Sperling <s...@elego.de> писал(а) в своём письме Thu, 18 May 2017 > 15:52:17 +0300: > > > On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 03:09:51PM +0300, Andrey wrote: > > > If i'll revert it then i'll LOSE CHANGES > > > > Of 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. > 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.
The revert operation is supposed to make the working copy look like the repository. It is a dangerous operation by definition since it always carries a risk of losing data. No matter what we do. That said, if other people agree with you that your scenario should be made a special case, I won't object. But I am not convinced that such a chance is necessary.
