On Mar 4, 2015, at 3:27 PM, bch <brad.har...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Before you reject the idea of one-step rm totally > > Oh, to be clear, I'm presenting this as a thought exercise.
If that’s all this is, we can send it to the philosophy department and move on to other topics. Personally, I thought we were talking about practical UX stuff here, not philosophy. >> Many filesystems and OSes combine file versioning and file management > > Sure, but: fossil is distinct from the filesystems. DOS, ext<n>, ffs, > etc., etc., etc are not versioning/managment filesystems, and there > ought to be a principle-of-least-surprise/being-a-good-citizen kept in > mind. The principle of least surprise says that Fossil should behave like other VCSes. Fossil is odd-man-out for mv, and emulates #5 in popularity on the list of VCSes I surveyed for rm. The principle says it should be emulating #1-3 instead. I’m ranking VCS popularity as git, svn, hg, cvs, bzr, fossil based on this table: http://goo.gl/M7ogNH That matches pretty well with what I see used in the wild. > Is it > a Good Thing, or again, as case of overstepping bounds ? Honest > question. One of Fossil’s primary virtues is uncommon simplicity for a DVCS. It isn’t as simple as svn, but wherever possible, it generally takes no more work to do something in Fossil as in svn. I’m proposing that we fix one of the remaining usability gaps. > I'll review your linked paper on hg for more ideas. It’s just several brief paragraphs of text and a 5x5 table. It’ll only take you a few minutes to get through. _______________________________________________ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
