2015-03-09 23:06 GMT+01:00 Tontyna tont...@ultrareal.de:
Hurray and thank you!
Will `addremove` become `addforget`? (Sorry, couldn't resist nitpicking.)
It should be 'addforgetrename', with the added functionality that
renames are detected too ;-)
Regards,
Jan Nijtmans
Am 09.03.2015 um 10:09 schrieb Jan Nijtmans:
Done now:
http://www.fossil-scm.org/index.html/info/8cf976d24689ae9e
This means that whatever happens with fossil rm|mv|delete, the
fossil rename and fossil forget will continue to function as
they do now.
Hurray and thank you!
Will
2015-03-06 16:58 GMT+01:00 Jan Danielsson jan.m.daniels...@gmail.com:
On 06/03/15 15:10, Jan Nijtmans wrote:
Any objections against adding fossil forget as alias
to fossil rm If not, I'll be glad to add it, awaiting
further discussion.
No objection. I'm even going to go so far as to
On Fri, Mar 06, 2015 at 03:46:08PM +0100, j. van den hoff wrote:
On Fri, 06 Mar 2015 15:11:31 +0100, Tontyna tont...@ultrareal.de wrote:
Hi there,
I'd prefer that default `rm`/`mv` without options leave my file
system alone. A `--forcefilesytem` flag would be a convenient
enhancement.
On Fri, 06 Mar 2015 15:11:31 +0100, Tontyna tont...@ultrareal.de wrote:
I'm in the 1%, too.
Perhaps that's because of my OS being Windows and me being a Fossil
newbie.
Maybe me and my co-workers aren't exemplars of The Average Fossil User
(current and future) but typing commands in a
Am 06.03.2015 um 15:46 schrieb j. van den hoff:
On Fri, 06 Mar 2015 15:11:31 +0100, Tontyna tont...@ultrareal.de wrote:
I'd prefer that default `rm`/`mv` without options leave my file system
alone. A `--forcefilesytem` flag would be a convenient enhancement.
personally, I would _not_ like to
I'm in the 1%, too.
Perhaps that's because of my OS being Windows and me being a Fossil newbie.
Maybe me and my co-workers aren't exemplars of The Average Fossil User
(current and future) but typing commands in a shell is not our common
approach to move or delete files.
Reference point are
2015-03-06 1:32 GMT+01:00 jungle Boogie jungleboog...@gmail.com:
On 5 March 2015 at 12:49, Roy Marples r...@marples.name wrote:
Add flag -f to mv and rm to do this?
Allows the desired feature and is sort of similar to CVS
fossil mv -f file1 file2
fossil rm -f file1 file2
Yes, this seems
On 06/03/15 15:10, Jan Nijtmans wrote:
[---]
fossil rename already exists as alias to fossil mv, so I
suggest to add fossil forget as alias to fossil rm. Then
later the behavior of fossil rm/mv can be modified, while
forget/rename will continue to behave as rm/mv do now.
Any objections
On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 9:11 AM, Tontyna tont...@ultrareal.de wrote:
Maybe me and my co-workers aren't exemplars of The Average Fossil User
(current and future) but typing commands in a shell is not our common
approach to move or delete files.
Reference point are files on a harddrive actually
Am 06.03.2015 um 18:45 schrieb Ron W:
On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 9:11 AM, Tontyna tont...@ultrareal.de
mailto:tont...@ultrareal.de wrote:
Maybe me and my co-workers aren't exemplars of The Average Fossil
User (current and future) but typing commands in a shell is not our
common approach
On Tuesday 03 Mar 2015 16:22:40 Richard Hipp wrote:
On 3/3/15, Warren Young w...@etr-usa.com wrote:
Is there a good reason that “fossil mv” and “fossil rm” must be followed
by
OS-level mv and rm commands? I miss the behavior of Subversion which made
these into a single step.
When I
On 5 March 2015 at 12:49, Roy Marples r...@marples.name wrote:
Add flag -f to mv and rm to do this?
Allows the desired feature and is sort of similar to CVS
fossil mv -f file1 file2
fossil rm -f file1 file2
Yes, this seems simple and easy enough to type. There may be some
objections as it
I think that both worlds can live together without any problem.
- When doing fossil mv A B
* If A exists and B does not exist in file system, rename file A to B
* If B exists and A does not exist in file system, do nothing
* If either both exist or none exists, warn and stop
- When doing fossil
On 03/03/15 22:27, j. van den hoff wrote:
On Tue, 03 Mar 2015 22:22:40 +0100, Richard Hipp d...@sqlite.org wrote:
On 3/3/15, Warren Young w...@etr-usa.com wrote:
Is there a good reason that “fossil mv” and “fossil rm” must be
followed by
OS-level mv and rm commands? I miss the behavior of
On Wed, Mar 04, 2015 at 06:33:07PM +0100, Ramon Ribó wrote:
I think that both worlds can live together without any problem.
- When doing fossil mv A B
* If A exists and B does not exist in file system, rename file A to B
* If B exists and A does not exist in file system, do nothing
* If
What you're describing here is the crux of the problem, and I think
can be fairly described as separation of concerns -- the domain of
the version control is it's controlled files, and if a file is not
handled by version control, (ie: fossil rm somefile), should fossil be
reaching outside of its
On Mar 3, 2015, at 2:22 PM, Richard Hipp d...@sqlite.org wrote:
On 3/3/15, Warren Young w...@etr-usa.com wrote:
Is there a good reason that “fossil mv” and “fossil rm” must be followed by
OS-level mv and rm commands? I miss the behavior of Subversion which made
these into a single step.
On Mar 4, 2015, at 10:24 AM, paul pault.eg...@gmail.com wrote:
If fossil mv also moves files on a filesystem, I'd be happy with that, so long
as I can still use a file browser as I'm doing now.
All other VCSes I’ve used that do one-step mv [*] cope with this case
transparently. They see
On Mar 4, 2015, at 1:52 PM, Martin Gagnon eme...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Mar 04, 2015 at 06:33:07PM +0100, Ramon Ribó wrote:
- When doing fossil rm A
* If A exists in file system, delete file A
This is another story. Sometimes, I just want to remove file from
revision control
This is
Before you reject the idea of one-step rm totally
Oh, to be clear, I'm presenting this as a thought exercise.
Many filesystems and OSes combine file versioning and file management
Sure, but: fossil is distinct from the filesystems. DOS, extn, ffs,
etc., etc., etc are not versioning/managment
On Mar 4, 2015, at 3:27 PM, bch brad.har...@gmail.com wrote:
Before you reject the idea of one-step rm totally
Oh, to be clear, I'm presenting this as a thought exercise.
If that’s all this is, we can send it to the philosophy department and move on
to other topics.
Personally, I thought
On Mar 4, 2015, at 4:50 PM, Ross Berteig r...@cheshireeng.com wrote:
It has always bothered me that the command that reverses 'add' is ‘rm'
You can get the same effect without making yourself nervous with “fossil
revert”. This matches the behavior of Mercurial, Subversion, and Bazaar.
hg
On Mar 4, 2015, at 5:28 PM, Francis Daly fran...@daoine.org wrote:
On Wed, Mar 04, 2015 at 03:49:37PM -0700, Warren Young wrote:
The principle of least surprise says that Fossil should behave like other
VCSes.
I think that the principle of least surprise for users of fossil is
that
Personally, I thought we were talking about practical UX stuff here, not
philosophy.
That's not really fair -- this discussion is *couched* in applicable
philosophies.
On 3/4/15, Warren Young w...@etr-usa.com wrote:
On Mar 4, 2015, at 3:27 PM, bch brad.har...@gmail.com wrote:
Before you
Just to be clear: I don't yet know what I'm going to do about rm/mv.
But I am watching the discussion *very* closely and I deeply
appreciate the input. Thank you all. Please continue.
--
D. Richard Hipp
d...@sqlite.org
___
fossil-users mailing list
On Wed, Mar 04, 2015 at 03:49:37PM -0700, Warren Young wrote:
On Mar 4, 2015, at 3:27 PM, bch brad.har...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi there,
Sure, but: fossil is distinct from the filesystems. DOS, extn, ffs,
etc., etc., etc are not versioning/managment filesystems, and there
ought to be a
On Wed, Mar 04, 2015 at 05:52:36PM -0700, Warren Young wrote:
On Mar 4, 2015, at 5:28 PM, Francis Daly fran...@daoine.org wrote:
On Wed, Mar 04, 2015 at 03:49:37PM -0700, Warren Young wrote:
I think that the principle of least surprise for non-users of fossil is
(much) less important.
I
I fwiw have always found Fossil's mv and rm semantics odd. The following
semantics are basically what I expected when I first started using Fossil,
but extended to preserve backward compatibility. They basically do what
the user intended in all cases, do they not?
* fossil rm FILE:
* If
Every time I use fossil mv/rm, I've always had to issue the corresponding
mv/rm command (or equivalent commands in Windows). Can someone describe a
case where one would want to call fossil mv/rm, without intending the
referenced file to be moved/removed as well? To me, making fossil mv/rm
perform
On Wed, Mar 4, 2015 at 5:09 PM, Warren Young w...@etr-usa.com wrote:
On Mar 4, 2015, at 10:24 AM, paul pault.eg...@gmail.com wrote:
If fossil mv also moves files on a filesystem, I'd be happy with that,
so long
as I can still use a file browser as I'm doing now.
All other VCSes I’ve
On Wed, Mar 4, 2015 at 5:18 PM, Warren Young w...@etr-usa.com wrote:
Many filesystems and OSes combine file versioning and file management:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Versioning_file_system
In a sense, VCSes are a way to get such features on top of filesystems
that lack these
On Mar 4, 2015, at 4:08 PM, David Mason dma...@ryerson.ca wrote:
The only problem I
see with rm is that, at first blush (looking at the table):
You’re correct. If you try to remove an added but uncommitted new file, hg
warns you:
not removing foo: file has been marked for add (use forget
On Wed, Mar 4, 2015 at 7:05 PM, Warren Young w...@etr-usa.com wrote:
You can get the same effect without making yourself nervous with “fossil
revert”.
This not mentioned in fossil help revert. It only says Revert to the
current repository version of FILE or to specified version.
On Mar 4, 2015, at 5:29 PM, Ron W ronw.m...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Mar 4, 2015 at 7:05 PM, Warren Young w...@etr-usa.com wrote:
You can get the same effect without making yourself nervous with “fossil
revert”.
This not mentioned in fossil help revert. It only says Revert to the
On 3/4/2015 3:08 PM, David Mason wrote:
So I would endorse the change to fossil rm if we added a fossil
forget command.
Despite their similarities in many respects, 'mv' and 'rm' are different
in this one respect. It has always bothered me that the command that
reverses 'add' is 'rm', due to
I completely agree to change current mv/rm commands so as they perform
the OS level operation too. It looks like an inconsistency that they
do not move/remove the file in the local repository and they
move/remove it in the cloned repositories.
If some script breaks, it can be repaired. No
On 3/3/15, Warren Young w...@etr-usa.com wrote:
Is there a good reason that “fossil mv” and “fossil rm” must be followed by
OS-level mv and rm commands? I miss the behavior of Subversion which made
these into a single step.
When I have suggested changing this, I got push back that the change
On 3/3/15, to...@acm.org to...@acm.org wrote:
You could always have a global setting on how to deal with this (old way vs
new way) to keep everyone happy :)
So nobody would ever know what the mv and rm commands actually do
without first consulting their settings. No. I think that is a very
You could always have a global setting on how to deal with this (old way vs
new way) to keep everyone happy :)
-Original Message-
From: Richard Hipp
Sent: Tuesday, March 03, 2015 11:22 PM
To: Fossil SCM user's discussion
Subject: Re: [fossil-users] Justification for two-step mv and rm
Something like a cmv, crm (these are off the top of my head, don't
dwell on the poor names) command that is complete mv, and complete
rm would fit the bill, where it appropriately wraps the current mv/rm
commands is feasible, though.
-bch
On 3/3/15, Richard Hipp d...@sqlite.org wrote:
On
Is there a good reason that “fossil mv” and “fossil rm” must be followed by
OS-level mv and rm commands? I miss the behavior of Subversion which made
these into a single step.
I’ve written scripts to wrap these, but I won’t provide them here because they
don’t handle all of the cases
On Tue, 03 Mar 2015 22:22:40 +0100, Richard Hipp d...@sqlite.org wrote:
On 3/3/15, Warren Young w...@etr-usa.com wrote:
Is there a good reason that “fossil mv” and “fossil rm” must be
followed by
OS-level mv and rm commands? I miss the behavior of Subversion which
made
these into a single
43 matches
Mail list logo
