On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 6:08 PM, Eric <e...@deptj.eu> wrote: > On Thu, 13 Dec 2012 12:55:55 -0500, "Altu Faltu" <altufa...@mail.com> > wrote: > > In order to continue the debate: > > In my work flow, I do rm or mv in file system as and when needed. I do > > fossil rm or fossil mv only when reviewing my changes before commit. > > Well, yes, that is the way I do it too. I suspect that there are some > who do not review their changes before commit, and that many of those > commit way too often, essentially treating their VCS as a backup method. > This of course leads to junk, non-functional checkins, followed by an > unhealthy interest in rebase-like functionality. >
Well put. So Altu and Eric (and also Joe Mistachkin on a back-channel) have pretty much convinced me at this point to keep the current behavior of "fossil rm" and "fossil mv". But, should there be an opt-in option to also make the disk changes? Perhaps "fossil rm abc.txt" just removes abc.txt from configuration management, but "fossil rm -f abc.txt" also removes it from disk? And/or should there be a warning printed: "File abc.txt removed from management but unchanged on disk" just to give a heads-up to newcomers who expect different behavior? -- D. Richard Hipp d...@sqlite.org
_______________________________________________ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
