Every time I use fossil mv/rm, I've always had to issue the corresponding mv/rm command (or equivalent commands in Windows). Can someone describe a case where one would want to call fossil mv/rm, without intending the referenced file to be moved/removed as well? To me, making fossil mv/rm perform the filesystem mv/rm as well would save me a step. Looking back, this behavior would have saved me many steps.
I think it's a good thing if fossil reduces the amount of manual work that we need to perform. On Wed, Mar 4, 2015 at 3:08 PM, David Mason <[email protected]> wrote: > I agree that making fossil semantics work the same as Hg would be > good. The change to mv looks perfectly reasonable. The only problem I > see with rm is that, at first blush (looking at the table): > hg rm -f foo > is the way to remove a newly added file. It's good, as in safe, but > it wouldn't occur to me (because rm -f in the shell is so total). And > I actually needed to do this a couple days ago. Actually, it turns > out that the right way to do it is: > hg forget foo > So I would endorse the change to "fossil rm" if we added a "fossil > forget" command. > > ../Dave > _______________________________________________ > fossil-users mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users >
_______________________________________________ fossil-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
