j. v. d. hoff wrote:
>
> POLS comes again to mind.
>
The Principle of Least Surprise is not static. Changing the current
behavior
would be a huge (and potentially unpleasant) surprise for those who are very
actively using Fossil now.
>
> I can tell you that I _was_ surprised (being also a user of svn and hg)
when
> I installed fossil quickly read through the help ("ah yes, ci, add, pull,
> push, rm, mv, stat, log -- default naming scheme for default tasks"),
>
Of course, there are much bigger differences between Fossil and those other
systems than the semantics of "mv" and "rm".
>
> and I do not buy the "it'll be really dangerous for so many people"
> prophecy.
>
Obviously, I do buy it. Breaking compatibility is generally bad. It's even
worse when other _software_ (i.e. not humans) may depend on the current
semantics. The surface area of Fossil is the set of command line options it
exposes, since it's a command line tool. In this case, it would not be
unlike
changing the default behavior of the Unix "rm" command to implicitly include
the "-f" option.
--
Joe Mistachkin
_______________________________________________
fossil-users mailing list
fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org
http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
