Re: [fossil-users] tree checksum does not match

[Jeremy Cowgar]

Eric e...@deptj.eu wrote:
 
  What I'd expect if I had deleted a file from the file system without
  doing a fossil rm is that a fossil update would simply assuming that
  it was missing and restore it.  This is what CVS and SVN do, and I can't
  see any reason why a DVCS should be different in this regard.  (I'm
  quite willing to be enlightened if anyone can provide with one. :-)
 
  Will
 
 What should happen if you had removed the file on purpose?
 
 In any case, it is a merge of the file from the repository with the no-file 
 in the
 checkout, so if it is restored fossil should report it as it does for a 
 conventional
 merge.
 

Then you should see that fossil thinks it's missing and do a fossil rm 
file.txt, to let fossil know you meant for it to be removed.

Idealy, fossil rm file.txt should remove it from the repo and disk as discussed 
in another thread. Same for fossil mv file.abc file.def

Jeremy

___
fossil-users mailing list
fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org
http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users

Re: [fossil-users] tree checksum does not match

[altufaltu]

Well, revert could still be used for reverting selected files but update should 
also revert any missing files - that's how SCMs have worked.



-Original Message-
From: Jeremy Cowgar jer...@cowgar.com
To: fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org
Sent: Wed, Dec 16, 2009 9:07 am
Subject: Re: [fossil-users] tree checksum does not match


Will Duquette w...@wjduquette.com wrote: On Dec 15, 2009, at 5:58 PM, D. 
Richard Hipp wrote:   (Third thing that needs to be fixed - there ought to 
be an easier way  to revert many files.  Or, maybe if files are missing they 
out to be  automatically rm-ed.  Or maybe that there is an option to  
automatically rm missing files.  Thoughts?  What do other DVCSesdo?)  
Richard,  What I'd expect if I had deleted a file from the file system 
without doing a fossil rm is that a fossil update would simply assuming 
that it was missing and restore it.  This is what CVS and SVN do, and I can't 
see any reason why a DVCS should be different in this regard.  (I'm quite 
willing to be enlightened if anyone can provide with one. :-) I wonder if 
revert wouldn't be better. What I am thinking is that I may not want to update 
my source tree right now. Maybe I am in the middle of some big changes, 
autosync is on, etc...Just as if I were to edit abc.txt and blank the content, 
I could do a fossil revert to get the content back. If I accidentally removed a 
file, revert it. That will allow me to get it back without fancy trickery 
(autosync off, or update to my given 
version).Jeremy___fossil-users 
mailing 
listfossil-us...@lists.fossil-scm.orghttp://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