Revert and Update should be seperate commands

[GoogleCodeExporter]

What steps will reproduce the problem?
1. rename file
2. try to commit, realize a newer revision is on the server and you need to 
update
3. update

What is the expected output? What do you see instead?
I'd expect the changes from the other computer. However, in addition the 
renamed files are considered deleted and re-downloaded, so you end up with two 
files, oldFile.name and newFile.name when there should be only the new, renamed 
version.

Boar should detect that I'm coming from a revision that already had that file 
and that I deliberately deleted it. The whole idea of "If you want to revert 
some changes to a file, just delete the modified file and execute "update" 
again" just doesn't work. There needs to be a revert command to revert changes 
to the working set and an update command that gets other changes, not a single 
update command that is used for both.

Original issue reported on code.google.com by jannis.u...@stoppe.de on 3 Jul 2013 at 2:53

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Agreed. "update" should not replace deleted files, and a "revert" command 
should be used instead in those situations where the old delete + update 
behavior is desired.

Original comment by ekb...@gmail.com on 3 Jul 2013 at 10:42

• Changed state: Accepted
• Added labels: Type-Enhancement
• Removed labels: Type-Defect