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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
21 matches
Mail list logo
