On Nov 21, 2017, at 2:09 PM, Ron W <ronw.m...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> While I like the idea of a "smart default" for the file name, I'd rather have
> an "--open" (or "-o") option to trigger the automatic "fossil open”.
So…you want to remain more difficult to use than Git in this regard?
That’s not very Fossil.
(Yes, I just adjectived your noun. Deal with it.)
> 1. If the user actually wants to specify the name, the option would be
> needed, anyway.
No, they’d pass the FILENAME argument to “fossil clone,” just as you do today.
This does open a new issue, however. What does this mean:
$ fossil clone https://fossil-scm.org/ fsl
Do you:
a) get a fsl subdirectory containing the contents of the Fossil trunk checkout,
as Git would do; or
b) get a fsl.fossil file, as someone up-thread apparently wants. That is,
assume the FILENAME argument is still a repository file name, and that if
.fossil is not given as an extension, add it? Or
c) get a fsl file, as Fossil 2.4 and all prior versions do?
> 2. By not requiring the option, it would be hiding one of Fossil's advantages
> over git and Hg: Multiple working copies without the overhead of multiple
> repository copies.
Easily handled via either:
$ mkdir ../x ; cd ../x ; fossil open ../y/.fslrepo branch-x
$ mkdir ../x ; cd ../x ; fossil open ../y branch-x
In the second case, it sees that you’ve given it a directory name and that it
contains a .fslrepo repository file.
> 3. Adopting features from git is good, but let's not make Fossil too much
> like git.
Where it costs us nothing but development time and makes Fossil easier to use,
let’s steal as much as possible. :)
_______________________________________________
fossil-users mailing list
fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org
http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
