Re: [fossil-users] fossil rm followed by unix rm followed by update and files come back, is this desirable?

2012-02-04 Thread Dmitry Chestnykh
On Fri, 3 Feb 2012 09:57:47 -0700 Matt Welland wrote: > > > If I do: > > > > > > fossil rm some/file.txt > > > rm some/file.txt > > > > fossil commit > > > > People often prefer to commit when their work has reached some level > of completion or readiness and partially done commits can cause > un

Re: [fossil-users] fossil rm followed by unix rm followed by update and files come back, is this desirable?

2012-02-03 Thread Richard Hipp
On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 11:18 AM, Matt Welland wrote: > If I do: > > fossil rm some/file.txt > rm some/file.txt > ...do stuff... > fossil update > > then some/file.txt is resurrected which is really really annoying when you > just got your build to work and then because files that shouldn't be the

Re: [fossil-users] fossil rm followed by unix rm followed by update and files come back, is this desirable?

2012-02-03 Thread Tomek Kott
I think part of the original post was whether the documentation was correct. i.e., it says uncommitted changes are retained. I would argue that "fossil rm" is an uncommitted change, which should be retained. Either the documentation is wrong or there is a bug w.r.t. "fossil rm". As a work around,

Re: [fossil-users] fossil rm followed by unix rm followed by update and files come back, is this desirable?

2012-02-03 Thread Mike Meyer
On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 10:57 AM, Matt Welland wrote: > On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 9:46 AM, Dmitry Chestnykh > wrote: >> On Fri, 3 Feb 2012 09:18:32 -0700 Matt Welland wrote: >> > If I do: >> > fossil rm some/file.txt >> > rm some/file.txt >> fossil commit > People often prefer to commit when their wo

Re: [fossil-users] fossil rm followed by unix rm followed by update and files come back, is this desirable?

2012-02-03 Thread Matt Welland
On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 9:46 AM, Dmitry Chestnykh wrote: > On Fri, 3 Feb 2012 09:18:32 -0700 Matt Welland wrote: > > > If I do: > > > > fossil rm some/file.txt > > rm some/file.txt > > fossil commit > People often prefer to commit when their work has reached some level of completion or readiness a

Re: [fossil-users] fossil rm followed by unix rm followed by update and files come back, is this desirable?

2012-02-03 Thread Dmitry Chestnykh
On Fri, 3 Feb 2012 09:18:32 -0700 Matt Welland wrote: > If I do: > > fossil rm some/file.txt > rm some/file.txt fossil commit -- Dmitry Chestnykh http://www.codingrobots.org ___ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists

[fossil-users] fossil rm followed by unix rm followed by update and files come back, is this desirable?

2012-02-03 Thread Matt Welland
If I do: fossil rm some/file.txt rm some/file.txt ...do stuff... fossil update then some/file.txt is resurrected which is really really annoying when you just got your build to work and then because files that shouldn't be there suddenly reappear and things break. I can see where might be some c