On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 11:43:20AM -0400, Richard Hipp wrote: > On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 11:38 AM, Martin Gagnon <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > From my CVS background, I'm use to do dry run before every update or > > commit I do. For CVS it's absolutely necessary, since there's no undo > > command and for some operation, when there's conflict, it can produce a > > big mess on local files. > > > > When I start using fossil, I keep same habit with update. I use fossil > > update -n pretty often. But when autosync is on, the "-n" of fossil > > doen't really show what the real update would do, since with "-n" the > > "pull" part is skipped. Normal since there's no "dryrun" option for > > pull/push/sync operation. > > > > Does somebody think it could be usefull to have -dryrun (-n) option to > > push/pull/sync command ? Or would it be possible to add those option on > > the actual desing of fossil. > > > > Is there any reason to "dryrun" a pull? Maybe we should make the automatic > pull happen even if the -n option is specified?
Ramon just explain it very well... > > Note that predicting what an "update" would do after a pull without actually > doing the pull first would be rather difficult. > That why it would need a dryrun option to the pull command, in order to be able to predict what would change on the update. -- Martin G. _______________________________________________ fossil-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
