On Aug 3, 2015, at 4:35 PM, Andy Goth <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 8/3/2015 3:37 PM, Warren Young wrote: >> On Aug 3, 2015, at 12:49 PM, Andy Goth <[email protected]> wrote: >>> On 8/3/2015 2:01 AM, Michai Ramakers wrote: >>> >>> Any plans to bring them in sync? >> >> We had a long thread about it months ago: > > Pretty sure he was talking about whether or not mv and rm should touch > the checkout files, not about whether their semantics should be made to > match those of the like-named Unix commands.
I don’t see the distinction. Fossil currently forces a two-step mv, which is different from *every other popular F/OSS VCS* except for CVS, and that’s only because CVS doesn’t have mv at all. Fossil also forces a two-step rm. F/OSS VCSes vary quite a bit in behavior here, as I cataloged here: http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/pipermail/fossil-users/2015-March/020032.html That said, I think we have a well-considered exemplar to emulate: https://www.selenic.com/mercurial/hg.1.html#remove As for questions about how to deal with OS semantics, I don’t think we have a real problem here. File deletion semantics are straightforward on all OSes Fossil runs on. The hg rm design shows how the VCS and OS can interact in a safe way. As for file *move* semantics, the only tricky bit is how to handle moves across filesystems, but that’s irrelevant to Fossil since there is no way to “open” a Fossil repo so that it spans filesystems. (Well, not without OS help, which would paper over the mv semantics problem, too.) Bottom line: Fossil doesn’t have to blaze trail on this. There are already well-trod paths. _______________________________________________ fossil-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
