Re: [fossil-users] quick poll: do you generally use add/rm or mv
I would use mv. Having had bad experiences with other source control systems where you loose history with add/rm type commands, I would use mv to retain that. ___ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
Re: [fossil-users] quick poll: do you generally use add/rm or mv
On 8/4/2015 12:59 AM, Stephan Beal wrote: On Mon, Aug 3, 2015 at 9:04 PM, Ross Berteig r...@cheshireeng.com mailto:r...@cheshireeng.com wrote: And then, there will be fresh set of edge cases with subtly different behavior on Windows. And for that matter, do all versions of Unix-descendents mv have the same quirks at the edges? IMHO, fossil does a remarkable job of handling rename now. I'm not sure what the ROI is for tuning the fossil mv command further... fwiw: +1 Maybe it's time to bump my old thread about a serious deficiency in renaming in combination with branching and merging. No one has replied to this thread, other than myself to report on further research. http://www.mail-archive.com/fossil-users%40lists.fossil-scm.org/msg20758.html -- 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
Re: [fossil-users] quick poll: do you generally use add/rm or mv
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
Re: [fossil-users] quick poll: do you generally use add/rm or mv
On 5 August 2015 at 17:35, Andy Goth andrew.m.g...@gmail.com wrote: 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. This is (probably) fixed very recently in a branch: http://fossil-scm.org/index.html/timeline?r=mvHardDirFixndc=2015-07-29+18%3A44%3A10n=200 (I didn't know you could omit one hyphen from long options btw.) Michai ___ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
Re: [fossil-users] quick poll: do you generally use add/rm or mv
On Wed, Aug 5, 2015 at 8:01 AM, Andy Goth andrew.m.g...@gmail.com wrote: On 8/4/2015 12:59 AM, Stephan Beal wrote: On Mon, Aug 3, 2015 at 9:04 PM, Ross Berteig r...@cheshireeng.com mailto:r...@cheshireeng.com wrote: And then, there will be fresh set of edge cases with subtly different behavior on Windows. And for that matter, do all versions of Unix-descendents mv have the same quirks at the edges? IMHO, fossil does a remarkable job of handling rename now. I'm not sure what the ROI is for tuning the fossil mv command further... fwiw: +1 Maybe it's time to bump my old thread about a serious deficiency in renaming in combination with branching and merging. No one has replied to this thread, other than myself to report on further research. http://www.mail-archive.com/fossil-users%40lists.fossil-scm.org/msg20758.html Thanks Andy for the clear articulation of that problem. I have had people I support run into that several times. It would be really excellent to be able to tell users that they can refactor the organisation of a project using mv, rm etc. on a branch and then merge it back in. Currently it can't be done so I advise people that they should freeze development, do the refactor, then restart development. This is not something that happens all the time but when it does it is frustrating that the refactoring can't be done in parallel with development. Fixing this and making mv semantics identical to Unix would be a big win for fossil in my opinion. -- Andy Goth | andrew.m.goth/at/gmail/dot/com ___ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users ___ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
Re: [fossil-users] quick poll: do you generally use add/rm or mv
On 8/5/2015 12:34 PM, Matt Welland wrote: On Wed, Aug 5, 2015 at 8:01 AM, Andy Goth andrew.m.g...@gmail.com mailto:andrew.m.g...@gmail.com wrote: http://www.mail-archive.com/fossil-users%40lists.fossil-scm.org/msg20758.html I have had people I support run into that several times. It would be really excellent to be able to tell users that they can refactor the organisation of a project using mv, rm etc. on a branch and then merge it back in. Currently it can't be done so I advise people that they should freeze development, do the refactor, then restart development. Have you read my follow-up emails? This part especially: Looking at the merge code, I see this comment: Rename files that have taken a rename on P-M but which keep the same name on P-V. If a file is renamed on P-V only or on both P-V and P-M then we retain the V name of the file. Thinking about this further, it's making more and more sense. The merge algorithm of working from the nearest common ancestor is built on the assumption that everything before then has already been merged. That assumption does not hold in the situation given by the second sentence of the comment quoted above. The issue is indeed a consequence of the design of the merge algorithm. Fixing it is going to take some thought. You probably should not reply to this email since it's getting far off topic. If you can, please reply to the original thread. Fixing this and making mv semantics identical to Unix would be a big win for fossil in my opinion. Agree. Thankfully, mv is going in the right direction. -- 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
Re: [fossil-users] quick poll: do you generally use add/rm or mv
On Wed, Aug 5, 2015 at 11:35 AM, Andy Goth andrew.m.g...@gmail.com wrote: 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. Actually, the directory just gets rename. And if the directory is moved, Unix/Linux systems will create a new link to the directory in it's target location, then remove the original link. The time directory contents would have to be physically move is if the target location in a different file system (what Windows would call a volume or drive). The reason Fossil's mv semantics differ is because Fossil is tracking files relative to the project root. Therefore, to Fossil, dir/file.c is just the name of a file. While Unix/Linux sees the name of a directory and the name of a file in that directory. Really, Fossil is only tracking artifacts. When an artifact is a file, it's manifest artifact has a file name attribute (for that artifact) with a value like dir/file.c that means something to a Unix/Linux/other file system. To Fossil, it's just a piece of meta data being maintained in the repository. ___ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
Re: [fossil-users] quick poll: do you generally use add/rm or mv
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: On 8/3/2015 2:01 AM, Michai Ramakers 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. Fossil currently forces a two-step mv, which is different from *every other popular F/OSS VCS* except for CVS, and that’s only because CVS doesn’t have mv at all. Fossil also forces a two-step rm. F/OSS VCSes vary quite a bit in behavior here, as I cataloged here: http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/pipermail/fossil-users/2015-March/020032.html That said, I think we have a well-considered exemplar to emulate: https://www.selenic.com/mercurial/hg.1.html#remove As for questions about how to deal with OS semantics, I don’t think we have a real problem here. File deletion semantics are straightforward on all OSes Fossil runs on. The hg rm design shows how the VCS and OS can interact in a safe way. As for file *move* semantics, the only tricky bit is how to handle moves across filesystems, but that’s irrelevant to Fossil since there is no way to “open” a Fossil repo so that it spans filesystems. (Well, not without OS help, which would paper over the mv semantics problem, too.) Bottom line: Fossil doesn’t have to blaze trail on this. There are already well-trod paths. ___ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
Re: [fossil-users] quick poll: do you generally use add/rm or mv
On Aug 4, 2015, at 1:53 PM, Joe Mistachkin sql...@mistachkin.com wrote: Warren Young wrote: Fossil currently forces a two-step mv No, it doesn't. Fossil now has the --hard option for mv/rm. Ah, I completely missed the announcement of that feature. However, this feature is not available by default, as you seem to be saying, at least in trunk. You must say: ./configure --with-legacy-mv-rm for the mv-rm-files option to be available. It’s documented at the bottom of /setup_settings, but if you configure without options, there is no UI field for it, and you get this on the command line: $ fossil set mv-rm-files 1 no such setting: mv-rm-files $ f ver This is fossil version 1.33 [0a2ebe576d] 2015-08-03 18:35:53 UTC Also, I’d say this configure option and the underlying C macro it defines is named confusingly. I’m not “enabling legacy mode” here, I’m enabling a preview of a future default feature. ___ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
Re: [fossil-users] quick poll: do you generally use add/rm or mv
Warren Young wrote: Fossil currently forces a two-step mv, which is different from *every other popular F/OSS VCS* except for CVS, and that's only because CVS doesn't have mv at all. No, it doesn't. Fossil now has the --hard option for mv/rm. Also, it can be compiled in such a way that --hard is the default. -- Joe Mistachkin ___ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
Re: [fossil-users] quick poll: do you generally use add/rm or mv
The same for me. I always use mv as, I guess, add/remove destroys the history of changes. Re syncing with the file system, I find it ok as it is. Usually, I move files using IDE when coding, and then find missing ones while trying to commit. For me 'mv' works ok with the exception that when I added a renamed file, such that 'fossil chan' gives: MISSING myfile-oldname.txt ADDED myfile-newname.txt fossil complains if I try to do $ fossil mv myfile-oldname.txt myfile-newname.txt and then I have to do $ fossil rm newname.txt $ fossil mv myfile-oldname.txt myfile-newname.txt It would be perfect for me if I could just run the mv command even if the renamed file was already added to the current change stack. Cheers, Jacek 2015-08-03 4:53 GMT+01:00 Stephan Beal sgb...@googlemail.com: Counterpoint: have never used addremove because (A) i invariably have lots of temp/scratch files and (B) it's a pretty alien feature (not existing anywhere else, AFAIK). i always use mv. - stephan Sent from a mobile device, possibly from bed. Please excuse brevity and typos. On Aug 3, 2015 01:22, Matt Welland mattrwell...@gmail.com wrote: I've been using (and advising others to use) addremove because fossil mv behavior did not match Unix mv. The differences were confusing. I've no idea if fossil mv now behaves exactly like mv. The other issue was that fossil move did not keep the filesystem in sync with fossil which is also confusing and error prone. On Sat, Aug 1, 2015 at 8:46 AM, Michai Ramakers m.ramak...@gmail.com wrote: Hello, I have been avoiding 'fossil mv' a bit until recently, because I didn't trust it for no good reason. I reckon since it is in trunk, it is considered stable. In project-trees here, I move/rename dirs and files quite often. What I did earlier, was simply to move them as per filesystem, and then let 'fossil addremove' do its thing, and make a commit of only those additions/removals. I was wondering what you generally do for directory trees in motion - use add/rm or mv ? And: the benefit of fossil having a concept of 'moved file/dir' is that the user can trace ancestry crossing moves/renames more easily, is that correct? (At least that's how I use it now.) Michai ___ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users ___ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users ___ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users ___ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
Re: [fossil-users] quick poll: do you generally use add/rm or mv
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: On 8/3/2015 2:01 AM, Michai Ramakers wrote: On 3 August 2015 at 01:22, Matt Welland mattrwell...@gmail.com wrote: I've no idea if fossil mv now behaves exactly like mv. indeed, it does not. Any plans to bring them in sync? We had a long thread about it months ago: http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/pipermail/fossil-users/2015-March/019997.html So far as I know, drh’s opinion remains: http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/pipermail/fossil-users/2015-March/020055.html 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. -- 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
Re: [fossil-users] quick poll: do you generally use add/rm or mv
On Mon, Aug 3, 2015 at 9:04 PM, Ross Berteig r...@cheshireeng.com wrote: And then, there will be fresh set of edge cases with subtly different behavior on Windows. And for that matter, do all versions of Unix-descendents mv have the same quirks at the edges? IMHO, fossil does a remarkable job of handling rename now. I'm not sure what the ROI is for tuning the fossil mv command further... fwiw: +1 -- - stephan beal http://wanderinghorse.net/home/stephan/ http://gplus.to/sgbeal Freedom is sloppy. But since tyranny's the only guaranteed byproduct of those who insist on a perfect world, freedom will have to do. -- Bigby Wolf ___ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
Re: [fossil-users] quick poll: do you generally use add/rm or mv
On 04/08/15 00:34, Ross Berteig wrote: On 8/3/2015 11:49 AM, Andy Goth wrote: On 8/3/2015 2:01 AM, Michai Ramakers wrote: On 3 August 2015 at 01:22, Matt Welland mattrwell...@gmail.com wrote: I've been using (and advising others to use) addremove because fossil mv behavior did not match Unix mv. The differences were confusing. I've no idea if fossil mv now behaves exactly like mv. indeed, it does not. Any plans to bring them in sync? I often have to make a few attempts until I get fossil mv to do what I want. And then, there will be fresh set of edge cases with subtly different behavior on Windows. And for that matter, do all versions of Unix-descendents mv have the same quirks at the edges? What are the issues? I do not use mv much (because I rarely move files and directories around) which is probably why I have not noticed anything, but it would be nice to know IMHO, fossil does a remarkable job of handling rename now. I'm not sure what the ROI is for tuning the fossil mv command further... Regarding the original question: I have never resorted to addremove when intending renaming/moving files because I find the rename records to be useful when tracing the ancestry of a file. Personally, I know of fossil addremove and never use it, for much the same reasons that Stephan mentioned. I almost never have clutter-free source trees, and addremove is just too all-inclusive for that work flow. I use addremove all the time. I works well as long as I do wish I could undo easily when I make mistakes with it. --dry-run help avoid them, as does being careful with ignore-glob settings, but I still make the occasional mistake. -- Graeme Pietersz http://moneyterms.co.uk/ http://pietersz.net/ ___ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
Re: [fossil-users] quick poll: do you generally use add/rm or mv
On 8/3/2015 11:49 AM, Andy Goth wrote: On 8/3/2015 2:01 AM, Michai Ramakers wrote: On 3 August 2015 at 01:22, Matt Welland mattrwell...@gmail.com wrote: I've been using (and advising others to use) addremove because fossil mv behavior did not match Unix mv. The differences were confusing. I've no idea if fossil mv now behaves exactly like mv. indeed, it does not. Any plans to bring them in sync? I often have to make a few attempts until I get fossil mv to do what I want. And then, there will be fresh set of edge cases with subtly different behavior on Windows. And for that matter, do all versions of Unix-descendents mv have the same quirks at the edges? IMHO, fossil does a remarkable job of handling rename now. I'm not sure what the ROI is for tuning the fossil mv command further... Regarding the original question: I have never resorted to addremove when intending renaming/moving files because I find the rename records to be useful when tracing the ancestry of a file. Personally, I know of fossil addremove and never use it, for much the same reasons that Stephan mentioned. I almost never have clutter-free source trees, and addremove is just too all-inclusive for that work flow. -- Ross Berteig r...@cheshireeng.com Cheshire Engineering Corp. http://www.CheshireEng.com/ ___ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
Re: [fossil-users] quick poll: do you generally use add/rm or mv
On 8/3/2015 2:01 AM, Michai Ramakers wrote: On 3 August 2015 at 01:22, Matt Welland mattrwell...@gmail.com wrote: I've been using (and advising others to use) addremove because fossil mv behavior did not match Unix mv. The differences were confusing. I've no idea if fossil mv now behaves exactly like mv. indeed, it does not. Any plans to bring them in sync? I often have to make a few attempts until I get fossil mv to do what I want. Regarding the original question: I have never resorted to addremove when intending renaming/moving files because I find the rename records to be useful when tracing the ancestry of a file. -- 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
Re: [fossil-users] quick poll: do you generally use add/rm or mv
On 1 August 2015 at 17:46, Michai Ramakers m.ramak...@gmail.com wrote: Hello, I was wondering what you generally do for directory trees in motion - use add/rm or mv ? And: the benefit of fossil having a concept of 'moved file/dir' is that the user can trace ancestry crossing moves/renames more easily, is that correct? (At least that's how I use it now.) meta-question: if I wanted to write a small description of how exactly 'mv' behaves w.r.t. file- and dir-argument(s), and perhaps compare to *nix 'mv', what would be the place for this? The 'mv' command-help page, or a separate wiki-page? I think perhaps this falls somewhere in between. Michai ___ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
Re: [fossil-users] quick poll: do you generally use add/rm or mv
On Aug 3, 2015, at 12:49 PM, Andy Goth andrew.m.g...@gmail.com wrote: On 8/3/2015 2:01 AM, Michai Ramakers wrote: On 3 August 2015 at 01:22, Matt Welland mattrwell...@gmail.com wrote: I've no idea if fossil mv now behaves exactly like mv. indeed, it does not. Any plans to bring them in sync? We had a long thread about it months ago: http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/pipermail/fossil-users/2015-March/019997.html So far as I know, drh’s opinion remains: http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/pipermail/fossil-users/2015-March/020055.html ___ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
Re: [fossil-users] quick poll: do you generally use add/rm or mv
Counterpoint: have never used addremove because (A) i invariably have lots of temp/scratch files and (B) it's a pretty alien feature (not existing anywhere else, AFAIK). i always use mv. - stephan Sent from a mobile device, possibly from bed. Please excuse brevity and typos. On Aug 3, 2015 01:22, Matt Welland mattrwell...@gmail.com wrote: I've been using (and advising others to use) addremove because fossil mv behavior did not match Unix mv. The differences were confusing. I've no idea if fossil mv now behaves exactly like mv. The other issue was that fossil move did not keep the filesystem in sync with fossil which is also confusing and error prone. On Sat, Aug 1, 2015 at 8:46 AM, Michai Ramakers m.ramak...@gmail.com wrote: Hello, I have been avoiding 'fossil mv' a bit until recently, because I didn't trust it for no good reason. I reckon since it is in trunk, it is considered stable. In project-trees here, I move/rename dirs and files quite often. What I did earlier, was simply to move them as per filesystem, and then let 'fossil addremove' do its thing, and make a commit of only those additions/removals. I was wondering what you generally do for directory trees in motion - use add/rm or mv ? And: the benefit of fossil having a concept of 'moved file/dir' is that the user can trace ancestry crossing moves/renames more easily, is that correct? (At least that's how I use it now.) Michai ___ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users ___ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users ___ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
Re: [fossil-users] quick poll: do you generally use add/rm or mv
I've been using (and advising others to use) addremove because fossil mv behavior did not match Unix mv. The differences were confusing. I've no idea if fossil mv now behaves exactly like mv. The other issue was that fossil move did not keep the filesystem in sync with fossil which is also confusing and error prone. On Sat, Aug 1, 2015 at 8:46 AM, Michai Ramakers m.ramak...@gmail.com wrote: Hello, I have been avoiding 'fossil mv' a bit until recently, because I didn't trust it for no good reason. I reckon since it is in trunk, it is considered stable. In project-trees here, I move/rename dirs and files quite often. What I did earlier, was simply to move them as per filesystem, and then let 'fossil addremove' do its thing, and make a commit of only those additions/removals. I was wondering what you generally do for directory trees in motion - use add/rm or mv ? And: the benefit of fossil having a concept of 'moved file/dir' is that the user can trace ancestry crossing moves/renames more easily, is that correct? (At least that's how I use it now.) Michai ___ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users ___ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
[fossil-users] quick poll: do you generally use add/rm or mv
Hello, I have been avoiding 'fossil mv' a bit until recently, because I didn't trust it for no good reason. I reckon since it is in trunk, it is considered stable. In project-trees here, I move/rename dirs and files quite often. What I did earlier, was simply to move them as per filesystem, and then let 'fossil addremove' do its thing, and make a commit of only those additions/removals. I was wondering what you generally do for directory trees in motion - use add/rm or mv ? And: the benefit of fossil having a concept of 'moved file/dir' is that the user can trace ancestry crossing moves/renames more easily, is that correct? (At least that's how I use it now.) Michai ___ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
