As Julian pointed out, I'm working on making 'revert' work with our NODES table in the layered design situation. As part of that work, I was studying the current behaviour of revert: supposedly, that's what the behaviour of the new revert should look like in simple cases.
However, one of the things I found is that revert leaves unversioned artifacts behind. While I'm aware that in some situations this is part of the policy (don't delete uncommitted changes), in case of revert, it's rather unpractical for a number of reasons: 1. The artifacts left behind can cause botched merges later on - even with our current client 2. The artifacts can lead to obstructions in the new working copy model when we're going with the model of "incremental reverts" that Julian proposed Even if we want to prevent the deletion of uncommitted changes -which I'm going to challenge next- I think we leave behind way too many artifacts: all files and directories which were part of a copy or move tree-restructuring operation are left behind on revert. Now, The problem here is that the files are even left behind if they were unmodified - and hence reproducible - by which reasoning no destruction of local modifications could have happened in the first place. This is why I'm now proposing that we stop to leave behind the -unchanged- files which are part of a copy or move operation. One could argue that the same reasoning could be applied to added trees. However, in that case, you might also apply the reasoning that the subtree should stay behind unversioned: it's afterall only the 'add' operation which we're reverting and deleting the added subtree might actually destroy users' efforts. The tricky bit to the reasoning in the paragraph above is that we don't check if files have been fully changed (effectively replaced) or not, meaning that simply reverting a versioned file could in effect have the same consequences as deleting an added file. With respect to "keeping around unversioned reverted-adds", I'm not sure what to propose. What do others think? I'm inclined to argue along the lines of "they're all delete operations", however, given our current behaviour, I also see why users wouldn't expect this behaviour. Comments? Bye, Erik.
