On 3/4/2015 3:08 PM, David Mason wrote:
So I would endorse the change to "fossil rm" if we added a "fossil forget" command.
Despite their similarities in many respects, 'mv' and 'rm' are different in this one respect. It has always bothered me that the command that reverses 'add' is 'rm', due to the overloaded meanings attached to 'rm'. It has never felt comfortable to back out a mistaken 'fossil add' with 'fossil rm' out of fear that the target file might get deleted when all that is meant is to drop it from version control.
So I like the idea of a 'forget' command. It is a word that has no strong pre-existing file system semantics attached.
That said, having 'fossil rm' also 'forget' the target seems sane. So does requiring an override if the target has uncommitted changes. I'd also argue that 'fossil rm' should ignore files that are not currently under version control, that is it should remain separate from the ordinary 'rm' utility.
In any case, having 'fossil mv' take care of the file system as well makes sense, especially if it recognizes the other common case of something else having already performed the rename (shell, IDE, file browser, or something else entirely). That said, if both the old and new names exist it should probably fail without changing anything.
All that said, as a bearer of scars from CVS's disregard for renames and disrespect for deletes, the fact that fossil can and does get it right has been very welcome.
-- Ross Berteig [email protected] Cheshire Engineering Corp. http://www.CheshireEng.com/ _______________________________________________ fossil-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
