Closed GoogleCodeExporter closed 9 years ago
To your point that these operations are potentially destructive, you might want
to consider leaving the existing Cleanup command as is, and add an Extended
Cleanup command to the *extended* context menu.
Original comment by ryan.j.o...@gmail.com
on 16 May 2011 at 12:12
[] Unversion working copy
that isn't really needed anymore with WC-NG. And I don't think that would count
as "cleaning up" either.
[] Delete ignored files and folders
I think this should better be "Delete unversioned and ignored files and
folders".
Original comment by tortoisesvn
on 2 Jun 2011 at 7:13
Another point to consider: reverting changes won't work if the "status cleanup"
in the previous step fails. The same applies to all deleting unversioned items
because to find those, we have to execute an 'svn st' and that would then fail
as well (well, most likely fail since cleanup is usually done if the working
copy is in a bad state).
Original comment by tortoisesvn
on 2 Jun 2011 at 7:16
Considering the revert:
revert is a lossy operation. I mean all local changes are lost.
In the revert dialog, the user has at least a chance to see beforehand what
exactly is going to be reverted.
So I think we should first fetch the status of the path recursively, pick out
any file or folder that doesn't have a 'normal' status and then revert them all
one by one, but first moving them to the trash first as we do in the existing
revert.
That will of course take longer, but if "delete unversioned and ignored files
and folders" is checked too, that status fetch must be done anyway. And the
time it takes to revert the items individually and moving them to the trash
first is I think worth it.
Original comment by tortoisesvn
on 2 Jun 2011 at 8:11
This issue was closed by revision r21517.
Original comment by tortoisesvn
on 3 Jun 2011 at 4:05
Original issue reported on code.google.com by
tortoisesvn
on 6 Feb 2011 at 5:28