On Fri, 14 Dec 2012 00:08:04 +0100, Eric <[email protected]> wrote:
On Thu, 13 Dec 2012 12:55:55 -0500, "Altu Faltu" <[email protected]>
wrote:
In order to continue the debate:
In my work flow, I do rm or mv in file system as and when needed. I do
fossil rm or fossil mv only when reviewing my changes before commit.
Well, yes, that is the way I do it too. I suspect that there are some
who do not review their changes before commit, and that many of those
commit way too often, essentially treating their VCS as a backup method.
This of course leads to junk, non-functional checkins, followed by an
unhealthy interest in rebase-like functionality.
On another note, people are saying things like "there is a certain
behaviour that is expected" without saying why it is expected. The main
reasons seem to be that other VCS's do it and that it saves time. The
first is irrelevant and the second, in my opinion, a case of people
knowing the price of everything and the value of nothing.
I think this thread has served to highlight the number of people here
who want Fossil to be something other that what it set out to be, and
richard might decide that one, right? and even if it were true that this
discussion revolves about the issue of morphing fossil into something
else, which it is not, it could - theoretically - be a development in the
right direction presuming that the initial design (goal) was not perfect
in the strict sense of the word (which simply never can be the case in
this world). but all this is 100% relevant to the point at hand.
don't actually know what SCM means. It doesn't surprise me that they
sure. dummies all of them.
have caused some over-the-top reactions.
altogether I see your mail as another (logical) non sequitur.
j.
Eric
--
Using Opera's revolutionary email client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
_______________________________________________
fossil-users mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
