On Sat, 15 Dec 2012 12:03:26 +0100, Joe Mistachkin <[email protected]>
wrote:
j. v. d. hoff wrote:
POLS comes again to mind.
The Principle of Least Surprise is not static. Changing the current
behavior
would be a huge (and potentially unpleasant) surprise for those who are
very
actively using Fossil now.
I can tell you that I _was_ surprised (being also a user of svn and hg)
when
I installed fossil quickly read through the help ("ah yes, ci, add,
pull,
push, rm, mv, stat, log -- default naming scheme for default tasks"),
Of course, there are much bigger differences between Fossil and those
other
systems than the semantics of "mv" and "rm".
and I do not buy the "it'll be really dangerous for so many people"
prophecy.
Obviously, I do buy it. Breaking compatibility is generally bad. It's
even
worse when other _software_ (i.e. not humans) may depend on the current
semantics. The surface area of Fossil is the set of command line
yes, "may" but no convincing scenarios are provided where it _does_ and in
a way that would cause real grieve for many users. and we are still
talking about defaults (= most sensible/suitable for most users) here, not
about good vs. evil behaviour. I repeat that I support the recent proposal
by richard to change the default as described.
options it
exposes, since it's a command line tool. In this case, it would not be
unlike
changing the default behavior of the Unix "rm" command to implicitly
include
the "-f" option.
_that_ is the default in unix (no questions asked). but it's aliased to
`rm -i' for normal user accounts.
--
Joe Mistachkin
_______________________________________________
fossil-users mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
--
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
