On 27/01/2023 19:13, Paul Eggert wrote:
On 2023-01-25 05:34, Mike Frysinger wrote:
should there be a `--copy` flag to be able to undo `--no-copy` ?
We can add one if there's a need, but mv doesn't have a --clobber option
to match its --no-clobber and I'm hoping --no-copy is similar.
personal
On 2023-01-25 05:34, Mike Frysinger wrote:
should there be a `--copy` flag to be able to undo `--no-copy` ?
We can add one if there's a need, but mv doesn't have a --clobber option
to match its --no-clobber and I'm hoping --no-copy is similar.
personally i always argue against using negativ
On 25 Jan 2023 01:07, Paul Eggert wrote:
> On 2023-01-24 17:20, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > i'd like to require that the mv be
> > atomic when relocating a directory, and if it isn't, fallback to other
> > logic
>
> Calling the new option "--one-file-system" sounds a bit wrong, as
> --one-file-syst
On 25/01/2023 09:07, Paul Eggert wrote:
On 2023-01-24 17:20, Mike Frysinger wrote:
i'd like to require that the mv be
atomic when relocating a directory, and if it isn't, fallback to other
logic
Calling the new option "--one-file-system" sounds a bit wrong, as
--one-file-system is for programs
On 2023-01-24 17:20, Mike Frysinger wrote:
i'd like to require that the mv be
atomic when relocating a directory, and if it isn't, fallback to other
logic
Calling the new option "--one-file-system" sounds a bit wrong, as
--one-file-system is for programs like 'du' and 'cp' and causes them to
mv will automatically use rename, but if that fails (e.g. with EXDEV),
it falls back to copying files. i'd like to require that the mv be
atomic when relocating a directory, and if it isn't, fallback to other
logic. to that end, it'd be nice if mv supported --one-file-system and
would return an e
