Nolan Darilek <[email protected]> writes:
> If we're talking about adding "git" to the name because of this whole
> "rm" thing, we might as well consider "mercurial" as a candidate
> too. Mercurial behaves sensibly and removes the file automatically on
> rm. Naysayers aren't trying to make Fossil Git, we're just trying to
> make it do what most other VCSs do in these areas.
Speaking as someone who has absolutely no investment--emotional,
professional, or otherwise--in any VCS other than fossil (and also as a
non-programmer), is "what most other VCSs do" so important? Seems
like--while there's certainly potential room for tweaking--there's a
fundamental disconnect, philosophically, between
1) what is in the filesystem
2) what is kept in version control
and while the twain shall meet occasionally (to say the least), they are
not *necessarily* the same. Fossil, after all, is a version control
system, not a filesystem management system. It seems wholly natural to
me that "fossil rm x" should mean "remove the file x from version
control," since "version control" is fossil's raison d'etre. To my way
of thinking, VCSs which also really delete the file when removing it
from version control are violating their fundamental paradigm.
_______________________________________________
fossil-users mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
