title: Undo a Repair Move in TortoiseSVN
body: <p>Suppose I have renamed File <code>A</code> to File <code>B</code> with windows explorer and created a new File <code>C</code>.</p>
  
  <p>In Tortoise SVN, I accidently use the "Repair Move" on File <code>A</code> and <code>C</code>, instead of <code>A</code> and <code>B</code>. Is there an easy way to undo the repair (and redo it with the right files)? Changes are not committed at that point.</p>
  
  <p>The only way I'm currently aware of is reverting the delete and add, which will restore File <code>A</code>, then manually delete the file again and redo the associations correctly. With multiple files involved, this somewhat involves the risk of accidently reverting local changes, so I'm interested if there is a better way.</p>
  
  <p>Note: even though TortoiseSVN is used to produce the problem, an answer with svn console is also acceptable.</p>
  
  <hr>
  
  <p>Here is the example with Files <code>A.txt</code>, <code>B.txt</code> and <code>C.txt</code> step by step:</p>
  
  <p>After <code>A</code> is renamed to <code>B</code> and <code>C</code> is added locally</p>
  
  <pre><code>&gt;svn st
  !       A.txt
  ?       B.txt
  ?       C.txt
  </code></pre>
  
  <p>After Tortoise SVN "Repair move" is incorrectly applied <code>A</code> -> <code>C</code></p>
  
  <pre><code>&gt;svn st
  D       A.txt
          &gt; moved to C.txt
  ?       B.txt
  A  +    C.txt
          &gt; moved from A.txt
  </code></pre>
  
  <p>My workflow to fix the situation, which I'm not really happy with:</p>
  
  <pre><code>&gt;ren C.txt C.txt.bak
  &gt;svn revert C.txt A.txt
  &gt;ren C.txt.bak C.txt
  &gt;del A.txt
  </code></pre>
  
  <p>Resulting in the starting situation from where I can redo the repair with correct files</p>
  
  <pre><code>&gt;svn st
  !       A.txt
  ?       B.txt
  ?       C.txt
  </code></pre>
  
  <hr>
  
  <p>What I would love but which doesn't appear to exist</p>
  
  <pre><code>svn mv --force --ignore-files A.txt B.txt
  svn add --force C.txt
  </code></pre>
  
  <p>in a way that it ignores that A is already marked deleted and allow a history transfer from A to B, reinterpreting C as clean add instead of transfering history from A.</p>