On Tue, 03 Mar 2015 22:22:40 +0100, Richard Hipp <d...@sqlite.org> wrote:
On 3/3/15, Warren Young <w...@etr-usa.com> wrote:
Is there a good reason that “fossil mv” and “fossil rm” must be
followed by
OS-level mv and rm commands? I miss the behavior of Subversion which
made
these into a single step.
When I have suggested changing this, I got push back that the change
will break existing scripts.
IIRC there was a lot of aversion at that time on the list along the line
"fossil should not mess with my file system" which I personally found (and
still find) essentially non-sequitur (since every `fossil up' does of
course cause changes of the checkout content anyway). I'm also not sure
what scripts would break and what the amount of work would be to fix those
scripts (except removing the OS-level `mv' and `rm' actions if those were
then executed by fossil itself) in comparison to getting an overall
preferable behaviour (in my view, anyway). so, I would second the OP's
request to make fossil behave essentially like svn (or hg) regarding `mv'
and `rm'. I'm quite sure that would be the better behaviour in the
overwhelming number of use cases (i.e. right now I would guess that in 99
out of 100 cases `fossil mv/rm' is followed by the corresponding os-level
command, so ...).
--
Using Opera's revolutionary email client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
_______________________________________________
fossil-users mailing list
fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org
http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
