On 12/15/12 03:15, Richard Hipp wrote:
[---]
> 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"

   I vote "Yes" to all the above.

-- 
Kind regards,
Jan Danielsson

_______________________________________________
fossil-users mailing list
fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org
http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users

Reply via email to