Re: [fossil-users] Fossil 2.0: rethinking extras, addremove, and clean

2016-05-24 Thread Ron W
On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 9:11 AM, Joerg Sonnenberger wrote: > On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 07:06:18AM -0600, Warren Young wrote: > > On May 22, 2016, at 2:49 PM, Andy Goth wrote: > > I wouldn’t mind seeing all but “extras” go away. You should be able > > to run

Re: [fossil-users] Fossil 2.0: rethinking extras, addremove, and clean

2016-05-24 Thread Joerg Sonnenberger
On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 07:06:18AM -0600, Warren Young wrote: > On May 22, 2016, at 2:49 PM, Andy Goth wrote: > > > > On 5/22/2016 3:22 PM, Ron W wrote: > >> The build > >> systems "knows" how to clean up files it creates. Any other files not > >> managed by the VCS are

Re: [fossil-users] Fossil 2.0: rethinking extras, addremove, and clean

2016-05-24 Thread Warren Young
On May 22, 2016, at 2:49 PM, Andy Goth wrote: > > On 5/22/2016 3:22 PM, Ron W wrote: >> The build >> systems "knows" how to clean up files it creates. Any other files not >> managed by the VCS are the responsibility of the user. > > It's also my preference that the

Re: [fossil-users] Fossil 2.0: rethinking extras, addremove, and clean

2016-05-22 Thread Jan Nijtmans
2016-05-22 4:03 GMT+02:00 Joe Mistachkin: > Andy Goth wrote: >> My recommendation is to keep the promise made by the current addremove >> documentation. That is to say, make extras and adds be equal. This >> means changing the extras command to also ignore files matched by >> clean-glob: extras

Re: [fossil-users] Fossil 2.0: rethinking extras, addremove, and clean

2016-05-22 Thread Andy Goth
On 5/22/2016 3:22 PM, Ron W wrote: > My team and I don't have a use for a clean command in a VCS. The build > systems "knows" how to clean up files it creates. Any other files not > managed by the VCS are the responsibility of the user. > > I know some people like "clean" to help with making

Re: [fossil-users] Fossil 2.0: rethinking extras, addremove, and clean

2016-05-22 Thread Ron W
On Sun, May 22, 2016 at 12:38 AM, Andy Goth wrote: > On 5/21/2016 9:03 PM, Joe Mistachkin wrote: > > Andy Goth wrote: > >> The clean command has gotten very complicated, > > > > Unfortunately, most of the complexity is necessary and removing or > > changing the semantics

Re: [fossil-users] Fossil 2.0: rethinking extras, addremove, and clean

2016-05-22 Thread Ron W
On Sun, May 22, 2016 at 12:38 AM, Andy Goth wrote: > On 5/21/2016 9:03 PM, Joe Mistachkin wrote: > > Andy Goth wrote: > >> The clean command has gotten very complicated, so I further advocate > >> removing the -emptydirs and -dotfiles options and making them always > >>

Re: [fossil-users] Fossil 2.0: rethinking extras, addremove, and clean

2016-05-21 Thread Andy Goth
On 5/21/2016 9:03 PM, Joe Mistachkin wrote: > Andy Goth wrote: >> The clean command has gotten very complicated, so I further advocate >> removing the -emptydirs and -dotfiles options and making them always >> be in effect. Empty directories requiring preservation should be >> listed in the

Re: [fossil-users] Fossil 2.0: rethinking extras, addremove, and clean

2016-05-21 Thread Joe Mistachkin
Andy Goth wrote: > > My recommendation is to keep the promise made by the current addremove > documentation. That is to say, make extras and adds be equal. This > means changing the extras command to also ignore files matched by > clean-glob: extras = adds = tree - managed - ignore-glob. > I

[fossil-users] Fossil 2.0: rethinking extras, addremove, and clean

2016-05-21 Thread Andy Goth
I've always been bothered by the interaction between extras, addremove, and clean. Let's explore the current situation, its problems, how to deal with them in current Fossil, and how Fossil 2.0 could do better. I'll start by precisely explaining the current behavior as I understand it. First, I