On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 1:24 AM, Jan Danielsson
jan.m.daniels...@gmail.comwrote:
I'm willing to bet that the number of times people will type fossil
mv/rm X Y and not actually want to mv/rm X to Y just afterwards is
vanishingly small. More to the point; let's reverse your -s-flag; I.e.:
As I understand it, fossil currently deletes one file from disk when doing
and update if this file has been removed by another user.
For me, it is incoherent that fossil does not do the same on commit. Of
course, only for the case that there is a copy of the file in the previous
version and
Le 2012-12-12 06:28, Ramon Ribó a écrit :
As I understand it, fossil currently deletes one file from disk when
doing and update if this file has been removed by another user.
For me, it is incoherent that fossil does not do the same on commit.
Of course, only for the case that there is a
On Dec 12, 2012, at 08:28 , Gour wrote:
On Tue, 11 Dec 2012 18:59:59 -0600
C. Thomas Stover c...@thomasstover.com wrote:
Is there some way to push just a specific branch to a server other
than the private branch feature?
No, but it was discussed in the past...btw, I'd also like to have
Actually it turns out I can do what I want the existing private branch
feature. I noticed that on --push, --pull, and --clone there is a
--private option that says to include private branches.
So to use my earlier example, branch would be private, and pushes to
sever1 would use the --private
On Wed, 12 Dec 2012 12:21:41 -0600
C. Thomas Stover c...@thomasstover.com wrote:
Actually it turns out I can do what I want the existing private branch
feature. I noticed that on --push, --pull, and --clone there is a
--private option that says to include private branches.
The problem is in
Le 2012-12-12 13:21, C. Thomas Stover a écrit :
Actually it turns out I can do what I want the existing private branch
feature. I noticed that on --push, --pull, and --clone there is a
--private option that says to include private branches.
So to use my earlier example, branch would be private,
blabbing
I have made some great progress on my continuing quest for fire with
Fossil yesterday and today. In this episode, my juggling of
over-committed time cycled back around to answering questions about
branching and merging in the context of various development models
using Fossil.
In no way
Chad Perrin decía, en el mensaje Re: [fossil-users] why does `fossil rm' not
do the real thing? del Miércoles, 12 de Diciembre de 2012 18:22:53:
I rather suspect that, if Fossil continues to grow in usage over time,
and if it fails to implement sane defaults and options like what you just
On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 3:04 PM, Richie Adler richiead...@gmail.com wrote:
If that happens, please make sure to include git in the new name. That's
what all the naysayers are trying to convert Fossil into, anyway.
+1 :)
___
fossil-users mailing list
On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 03:07:51PM -0800, Themba Fletcher wrote:
On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 3:04 PM, Richie Adler richiead...@gmail.com wrote:
If that happens, please make sure to include git in the new name. That's
what all the naysayers are trying to convert Fossil into, anyway.
+1 :)
On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 12:13 AM, Chad Perrin c...@apotheon.net wrote:
Screw that. Git makes exactly the kind of UI mistakes I'm talking about
eliminating.
Well, one thing that I don't know whether to call UI mistake, but it
is certainly an inconvenience, is that to obtain accurate status
On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 3:13 PM, Chad Perrin c...@apotheon.net wrote:
On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 03:07:51PM -0800, Themba Fletcher wrote:
On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 3:04 PM, Richie Adler richiead...@gmail.com wrote:
If that happens, please make sure to include git in the new name. That's
what all
If we're talking about adding git to the name because of this whole
rm thing, we might as well consider mercurial as a candidate too.
Mercurial behaves sensibly and removes the file automatically on rm.
Naysayers aren't trying to make Fossil Git, we're just trying to make it
do what most other
On 12/12/2012 08:42 PM, Richie Adler wrote:
What's next? Replacing SQLite with individual files?
Absolutely not, and statements like this do more harm than good because
they willfully disregard the point of what is being expressed. The point
is not to be alarmist and extreme, as statements
On Wed, 12 Dec 2012 23:42:29 -0300
Richie Adler richiead...@gmail.com
wrote:
Sorry, I still think that the intention is to destroy what Fossil has
of unique to offer to be able to say that Git or Mercurial it's the
same and they should be preferred to Fossil.
What's next? Replacing SQLite
Nolan Darilek no...@thewordnerd.info writes:
If we're talking about adding git to the name because of this whole
rm thing, we might as well consider mercurial as a candidate
too. Mercurial behaves sensibly and removes the file automatically on
rm. Naysayers aren't trying to make Fossil Git,
17 matches
Mail list logo
