Well, revert could still be used for reverting selected files but update should also revert any missing files - that's how SCMs have worked.
-----Original Message----- From: Jeremy Cowgar <jer...@cowgar.com> To: fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org Sent: Wed, Dec 16, 2009 9:07 am Subject: Re: [fossil-users] tree checksum does not match Will Duquette <w...@wjduquette.com> wrote:> On Dec 15, 2009, at 5:58 PM, D. Richard Hipp wrote:> > > (Third thing that needs to be fixed - there ought to be an easier way> > to revert many files. Or, maybe if files are missing they out to be> > automatically "rm"-ed. Or maybe that there is an option to> > automatically "rm" missing files. Thoughts? What do other DVCSes > > do?)> > Richard,> > What I'd expect if I had deleted a file from the file system without> doing a "fossil rm" is that a "fossil update" would simply assuming that> it was missing and restore it. This is what CVS and SVN do, and I can't> see any reason why a DVCS should be different in this regard. (I'm> quite willing to be enlightened if anyone can provide with one. :-)> I wonder if revert wouldn't be better. What I am thinking is that I may not want to update my source tree right now. Maybe I am in the middle of some big changes, autosync is on, etc...Just as if I were to edit abc.txt and blank the content, I could do a fossil revert to get the content back. If I accidentally removed a file, revert it. That will allow me to get it back without fancy trickery (autosync off, or update to my given version).Jeremy_______________________________________________fossil-users mailing listfossil-us...@lists.fossil-scm.orghttp://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
_______________________________________________ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
