On Wed, Aug 5, 2015 at 8:01 AM, Andy Goth <andrew.m.g...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 8/4/2015 12:59 AM, Stephan Beal wrote: > > On Mon, Aug 3, 2015 at 9:04 PM, Ross Berteig <r...@cheshireeng.com > > <mailto:r...@cheshireeng.com>> wrote: > >> 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? > >> > >> 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... > > > > fwiw: +1 > > Maybe it's time to bump my old thread about a serious deficiency in > renaming in combination with branching and merging. No one has replied > to this thread, other than myself to report on further research. > > > http://www.mail-archive.com/fossil-users%40lists.fossil-scm.org/msg20758.html Thanks Andy for the clear articulation of that problem. I have had people I support run into that several times. It would be really excellent to be able to tell users that they can refactor the organisation of a project using mv, rm etc. on a branch and then merge it back in. Currently it can't be done so I advise people that they should freeze development, do the refactor, then restart development. This is not something that happens all the time but when it does it is frustrating that the refactoring can't be done in parallel with development. Fixing this and making mv semantics identical to Unix would be a big win for fossil in my opinion. > > > -- > Andy Goth | <andrew.m.goth/at/gmail/dot/com> > > > _______________________________________________ > fossil-users mailing list > fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org > http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users > >
_______________________________________________ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
