On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 8:58 PM, Themba Fletcher <themba.fletc...@gmail.com>wrote:
> > Could I humbly suggest "unmanage" for the name of the > remove-from-repo-and-leave-the-disk-alone command? This would be > consistent with the status messages emitted by fossil (I think on > merge?) and it's pretty clear from its name what it would do. > I thought of that. In fact, I typed it into my previous posting to this list, but then deleted that paragraph before I pressed "send". I could support "unmanage" as an alias for "delete". It is suggested to me (off-list) that it would be too disruptive to abruptly change the meaning of "fossil rm" to start deleting from disk. So I propose a staged implementation: Stage 1: (a) "fossil rm -f" deletes from disk (if it is safe to do so) (b) "fossil rm" works as currently, but prints a warning message that it will delete from disk in a future release. (c) "fossil delete" works as currently (d) "fossil unmanage" added as an alias for "fossil delete" Stage 2 (after a stage 1 has been released for a while): (e) "fossil rm" works just like "fossil rm -f" > > This could leave us with the following commands: > > 1. unmanage -- remove from repo > 2. delete -- unmanage and attempt to bring the disk to that state > 3. rename -- change the name / path of a file in the repo > 4. move -- rename as above, and bring the disk up to date > > I think this could be a pretty nice middle of the road compromise. As > for what rm and mv are aliased to at that point -- I for one don't > care. It's the continued existence of known safe (repo only) commands > that keeps me smiling. > -- D. Richard Hipp d...@sqlite.org
_______________________________________________ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
