On 04/08/15 00:34, Ross Berteig wrote: > On 8/3/2015 11:49 AM, Andy Goth wrote: >> On 8/3/2015 2:01 AM, Michai Ramakers wrote: >>> On 3 August 2015 at 01:22, Matt Welland <mattrwell...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> I've been using (and advising others to use) addremove because >>>> fossil mv >>>> behavior did not match Unix mv. The differences were confusing. >>>> I've no idea >>>> if fossil mv now behaves exactly like mv. >>> indeed, it does not. >> Any plans to bring them in sync? I often have to make a few attempts >> until I get fossil mv to do what I want. > > And then, there will be fresh set of edge cases with subtly different > behavior on Windows. And for that matter, do all versions of > Unix-descendents mv have the same quirks at the edges? What are the issues? I do not use mv much (because I rarely move files and directories around) which is probably why I have not noticed anything, but it would be nice to know > > IMHO, fossil does a remarkable job of handling rename now. I'm not > sure what the ROI is for tuning the fossil mv command further... > >> Regarding the original question: I have never resorted to addremove when >> intending renaming/moving files because I find the rename records to be >> useful when tracing the ancestry of a file. > > Personally, I know of fossil addremove and never use it, for much the > same reasons that Stephan mentioned. I almost never have clutter-free > source trees, and addremove is just too all-inclusive for that work flow. > I use addremove all the time. I works well as long as I do wish I could undo easily when I make mistakes with it. --dry-run help avoid them, as does being careful with ignore-glob settings, but I still make the occasional mistake.
-- Graeme Pietersz http://moneyterms.co.uk/ http://pietersz.net/ _______________________________________________ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
