On Dec 10, 2009, at 6:39 AM, Jeremy Cowgar wrote: > Will Duquette <[email protected]> wrote: >> I was unclear, apparently. >> >> Suppose "fossil rm *.foo" deletes the files from the file system and >> from Fossil. >> >> If I then do >> >> rm *.foo >> >> when I meant to do >> >> fossil rm *.foo >> >> I can then do >> >> fossil update >> >> which will give me my *.foo files back. Then, I can do >> >> fossil rm *.foo >> >> Note that I'd expect "fossil rm *.foo" only to remove files from the >> file system that it can remove from the repository, i.e., if I had an >> extra file, not_added.foo, I'd expect "fossil rm *.foo" to live it >> alone. >> > > What's wrong with that? I would expect that to be good behavior?
Nothing's wrong with that; everything's right with that. :-) This is apparently my week for being unclear. In case I'm still unclear, I'm very much in favor of "fossil rm" working in the way described above. Will > > Jeremy > > _______________________________________________ > fossil-users mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users ------------------------------------------------------------------ will -at- wjduquette.com | Catch our weblog, http://foothills.wjduquette.com/blog | The View from the Foothills _______________________________________________ fossil-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
