I've been using (and advising others to use) addremove because fossil mv behavior did not match Unix mv. The differences were confusing. I've no idea if fossil mv now behaves exactly like mv. The other issue was that fossil move did not keep the filesystem in sync with fossil which is also confusing and error prone.
On Sat, Aug 1, 2015 at 8:46 AM, Michai Ramakers <m.ramak...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hello, > > I have been avoiding 'fossil mv' a bit until recently, because I > didn't trust it for no good reason. I reckon since it is in trunk, it > is considered stable. > > In project-trees here, I move/rename dirs and files quite often. What > I did earlier, was simply to move them as per filesystem, and then let > 'fossil addremove' do its thing, and make a commit of only those > additions/removals. > > I was wondering what you generally do for directory trees in motion - > use add/rm or mv ? And: the benefit of fossil having a concept of > 'moved file/dir' is that the user can trace ancestry crossing > moves/renames more easily, is that correct? (At least that's how I use > it now.) > > Michai > _______________________________________________ > fossil-users mailing list > fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org > http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users >
_______________________________________________ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
