On Mon, Feb 02, 2015 at 03:23:46PM -0700, Warren Young wrote: > > On Feb 1, 2015, at 7:08 AM, Jan Danielsson <jan.m.daniels...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > The annoying thing is that when it fails, it wipes away whatever > > progress it has made. > > Yes, well, that’s the nature of transactional DB updates: all or nothing. > > > How difficult would it be to allow fossil to pick up where it left > > off in such a case? > > Are you seriously asking for Fossil to allow a local clone to be in an > inconsistent state after an error?
Why does it have to be an inconsistent state? At the very least, it could ask for isatty(stdout) whether it should just retry. Joerg _______________________________________________ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
