Fossil update will 'move' your changes as well, if you have any. Revert will just overwrite the file, and you will lose the changes. I also agree that the difference between "fossil update" and "fossil update files" is a bit confusing. But rather then removing the feature, I'd just print an info message saying 'current checkout changed to ...' or 'current checkout did not change'. Currently, there is no way to tell the difference from the output of the command; you have to do fossil info to realize this.
On Thu, Mar 17, 2011 at 1:15 PM, Ramon Ribó <ram...@compassis.com> wrote: > What can you do with: > > fossil update ?VERSION? FILES... > > That you cannot do easily with? > > fossil revert ?-r REVISION? ?FILE ...? > > > Or I am missing something or "fossil update files..." is redundant. > > RR > > > 2011/3/17 Joshua Paine <jos...@letterblock.com>: > > On Mar 17, 2011, at 11:00 AM, "johnfound" <johnfo...@evrocom.net> wrote: > >> On Thu, 17 Mar 2011 16:22:22 +0300, Konstantin Khomoutov > >> <flatw...@users.sourceforge.net> wrote: > >>> > >>> That is, my understanding is that it's check-ins (changesets) that are > >>> versioned, not files, and so it's the relations between check-ins which > >>> are considered when doing merges. > >> > >> If so, then using "fossil update ?VERSION? ?FILES" syntax violate the > >> "Principle of least astonishment". > > > > The trouble with the principle of least astonishment is how unpredictable > people's astonishment can be. > > > > Changing a particular file or files in my checkout to the version of > those files in some past or other branch is not a daily need, but I wouldn't > call it rare for me. SVN actually does keep track of the revision of > individual files, which I always found actually got in my way when all I > want to do is replace a file with a previous version. There may be an easier > way, but in SVN I always ended up copying and pasting the file contents from > a graphical history view. > > > > So a former SVN user could easily find the fossil behavior astonishing. > It wasn't astonishing to me, and it was a welcome change, but then I had > some intervening DVCS experience. > > > > Git has no 'update' but uses the checkout verb for switching to a > different commit, and like fossil git allows you to checkout only specific > files of a given revision. When you do, it behaves just like fossil update > VERSION FILES--the file is changed, but no record is kept of what version it > came from. > > > > I don't consider this a bug, and I would really hate to lose this > capability I don't care if it gets a different name, though, if that > satisfies others > > _______________________________________________ > > fossil-users mailing list > > fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org > > http://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 >
_______________________________________________ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
