---------- Original Message ---------- To: fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org (fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org) From: Joshua Paine (jos...@letterblock.com) Subject: Re: [fossil-users] Fossil omits the updates through "update" command. Date: 17.3.2011 18:59:54
>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. > I have very little experience with any version control systems. For me "least astonishment" means simply: If the file is changed by VCS, then later, VCS must knows about this fact and must take it into account. If the user changed the file by any other way (edit, copy paste, etc.) VCS should consider this file "edited". Any other variant is acceptable only if the VCS additionally detects some kind of edits, made by the user - for example moving, renaming or deletion of the files. IMHO, omiting actions, explicitly declared by command is not acceptable. http://fresh.flatassembler.net Assembly language visual programming. _______________________________________________ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
