On 8/3/2015 11:49 AM, Andy Goth wrote:
On 8/3/2015 2:01 AM, Michai Ramakers wrote:
On 3 August 2015 at 01:22, Matt Welland <mattrwell...@gmail.com> wrote:
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.
indeed, it does not.
Any plans to bring them in sync? I often have to make a few attempts
until I get fossil mv to do what I want.
And then, there will be fresh set of edge cases with subtly different
behavior on Windows. And for that matter, do all versions of
Unix-descendents mv have the same quirks at the edges?
IMHO, fossil does a remarkable job of handling rename now. I'm not sure
what the ROI is for tuning the fossil mv command further...
Regarding the original question: I have never resorted to addremove when
intending renaming/moving files because I find the rename records to be
useful when tracing the ancestry of a file.
Personally, I know of fossil addremove and never use it, for much the
same reasons that Stephan mentioned. I almost never have clutter-free
source trees, and addremove is just too all-inclusive for that work flow.
--
Ross Berteig r...@cheshireeng.com
Cheshire Engineering Corp. http://www.CheshireEng.com/
_______________________________________________
fossil-users mailing list
fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org
http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
