On Sep 11, 2015, at 4:19 PM, Ross Berteig <r...@cheshireeng.com> wrote: > > On 9/11/2015 2:10 PM, Warren Young wrote: >> On Sep 11, 2015, at 2:33 PM, Ross Berteig <r...@cheshireeng.com> >> wrote: >>> >>> I guess the other question to ask is how many of us have a project >>> with a branch named "undo”? >> > An early suggestion from either Stephen
It was Stephan, and I do see it now, thanks. I only took note of the --from-undo option, and didn’t realize that by “special-case name” he meant “tag-like entity.” > I personally think that "diff --from undo" is the best of all the proposals > floated in this thread, and tend to assume that "undo" is an unlikely branch > or tag name. I agree that it is unlikely to cause a conflict. I just don’t like that it makes you think about undo, when that is an implementation detail here. Let me put it a bit differently than before, since I don’t seem to be getting my point across. When you say “fossil up” and get a whole pile of changes, your next question is, “What exactly is the content of those changes?” This feature answers that question, and although it *happens* to do so using the undo mechanism, the user isn’t thinking about undoing the changes here, so why make them give a command that exposes this detail? This is all very bikesheddy, though. _______________________________________________ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
