2012/12/13 Jan Danielsson <jan.m.daniels...@gmail.com>
> "Richie Adler" (that is, myself, not Themba Fletcher) 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 like the above are. The point
> is
> >> to establish that there is a certain behavior that is expected, and
> Fossil
> >> does not exemplify that.
> >
> > Sure. But without fossil's deviation from the norm what possible
> > reason would I have to choose it over mercurial or git?
>
> I don't see changing the current rm/mv behavior as removing a selling
> point of fossil (and frankly speaking, I'm quite surprised to see that
> it's being treated as such).
In my particular case, is not. It's the recent flurry of requests to
"git-ify" Fossil what's incensing me. That's why I used hyperbole regarding
the SQLite
They want the good things about fossil but they want to keep working as if
it were Git. I say, if they like Git so much, eat the crow that comes with
it.
--
o-=< Marcelo >=-o
_______________________________________________
fossil-users mailing list
fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org
http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
