On Tue, 4 Aug 2015, Ron W wrote: > On Tue, Aug 4, 2015 at 11:37 AM, Stephan Beal <[email protected]> wrote: > On Tue, Aug 4, 2015 at 5:23 PM, Ron W <[email protected]> > wrote: > I think this would be a useful feature. > > > To me this all sounds like fossil enforcing project-specific policy, > which is something it most certainly should not be doing. > > > I was commenting on the specific suggestion of a "fossil check" command, > that would perform the same checks that "fossil commit" already does. > > It's possible that the --dry-run option for commit MIGHT be used for the > same effect. Right now, not able to try it to examine its behavior.
Yet another solution would to implement some test command(s), e.g. 'test-<somewhat>-sane'. I would like such checks if they would run in the times faster than ``fossil extras'' or ``fossil changes''. If tested state is "dirty" the command found at least *one* change, or missing, or extra, it just prints "dirty" and exits. Or may be ``fossil status'' command is right place to mark the "dirty" state, though that is slow and heavyweight command. Sergei _______________________________________________ fossil-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
