On Dec 9, 2009, at 4:45 PM, Joshua Paine wrote: > On Wed, 2009-12-09 at 22:22 +0100, Stephan Beal wrote: > >> That said, presumably when you "rm" a file, it already exists in the >> repo, and the chance of a significant loss due to an unwanted unlink() >> on the file seems to be small. > > [...]
Re: --keep > If that's not acceptable, let them keep their current default function, > but add a --do or --force flag to make them work on the filesystem, too. This is not consistent with svn --force (and so I think it will confuse people); svn does: Files (and directories that have not been committed) are immediately removed from the working copy. The command will not remove any unversioned or modified items; use the --force switch to override this behavior. In other words, svn always deletes locally unless there are uncommitted modifications. > I agree with Jeremy's proposal to prompt before destroying work that > hasn't been committed (and the consequent necessity of the --force > option). Right, this is what --force should do. It should not be required for locally deleting versioned and unmodified files. e _______________________________________________ fossil-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
