On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 3:01 PM, Warren Young <war...@etr-usa.com> wrote:
> On Dec 13, 2017, at 1:03 PM, jungle Boogie <jungleboog...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > On 13 December 2017 at 07:58, Warren Young <war...@etr-usa.com> wrote: > > > >> I’d feel differently if Fossil owned the directories, but it doesn’t. > They’re mine; leave them alone! > > > > Yes, I agree. I think this topic has been raised here in the past, > > although that was about removing files. > > The thing is, I’m an advocate of > > $ ./configure --with-legacy-mv-rm > $ fossil all set mv-rm-files 1 > > That is, I want Fossil mv and rm to behave like Unix mv and rm, yet I > still do not want Fossil touching my directories, because I know I didn’t > give ownership of them to Fossil. That might just be a training issue. > > One of the top-level directories in a Fossil based project I was looking > at recently has a top-level directory that holds both versioned content and > generated content. If I removed that directory with Fossil, I’d expect the > generated content to be left behind, even with --hard. What about the case where Fossil owns all the files in dir/sub-dir/? Should "fossil rm --hard dir/" remove the "sub-dir" directory since after the file remove operation the "sub-dir" will be empty? The "fossil clean" command has the "--emptydirs" option. That might be useful for the "rm" command as well.
_______________________________________________ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
