On Sat, Dec 15, 2012 at 03:44:28AM +0100, Jan Danielsson wrote: > 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.
+1 -- Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ] _______________________________________________ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
