On 8/4/2015 2:02 PM, Warren Young wrote: > On Aug 3, 2015, at 4:35 PM, Andy Goth <andrew.m.g...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On 8/3/2015 3:37 PM, Warren Young wrote: >>> On Aug 3, 2015, at 12:49 PM, Andy Goth <andrew.m.g...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> Any plans to bring them in sync? >>> >>> We had a long thread about it months ago: >> >> Pretty sure he was talking about whether or not mv and rm should >> touch the checkout files, not about whether their semantics should be >> made to match those of the like-named Unix commands. > > I don’t see the distinction.
When I say "semantics" I'm explicitly *not* talking about whether or not Fossil touches the disk files. I'm talking about how Fossil interprets user intent, irrespective of whether it does its work to disk files, the list of pending changes, or a dry run/debug printout. Let's take one case where Fossil and Unix disagree about mv. mkdir -p x/dir fossil new x.fossil cd x f open ../x.fossil echo hello > dir/file f addremove f mv -hard dir dir2 The last command prints: RENAME dir dir2 MOVED_FILE /home/andy/x/dir It creates an empty file called dir2 and leaves dir/file alone. It also doesn't change the change list, which still says "ADDED dir/file". Unix mv would have renamed the directory from dir to dir2, i.e. made the new directory, moved all files and subdirectories into it, then removed the old directory. Fossil mv's handling of directories seems to have improved lately, but it's not really worth our time to dig up old misbehaviors. What I describe now is current as of [1d3a80474b]. -- Andy Goth | <andrew.m.goth/at/gmail/dot/com>
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
