Re: [fossil-users] anything speaking against fossil add --commit ?
On 07/10/12 10:30, Benoit Mortgat wrote: What do you want the command to do in this case: * edit foo.txt (versioned) * fossil add --commit bar.txt Do you want the commit to just add bar.txt to the version control, or to also include foo.txt changes? Given that fossil add is a no-op when a file is versioned already, it would be natural to just do what has been asked: add and commit, i.e., no-op and commit. Regards, -Martin ___ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
Re: [fossil-users] anything speaking against fossil add --commit ?
On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 11:15 AM, Weber, Martin S martin.we...@nist.govwrote: Often I will run the following two commands: fossil add list of files ^add^ci (i.e., fossil ci list of files) immediately afterwards. Sometimes I forget the second step and then do some funny stuff (changing trunks, merging etc.) until I stumble over the uncommitted files. Is there anything speaking against adding a --commit (and maybe --message) option to add so that it'll commit immediately? Why do you think you will be more likely to type --commit after fossil add than you would be to type ; fossil commit? -Martin ___ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users -- D. Richard Hipp d...@sqlite.org ___ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
Re: [fossil-users] anything speaking against fossil add --commit ?
On 07/10/12 12:13, Richard Hipp wrote: Why do you think you will be more likely to type --commit after fossil add than you would be to type ; fossil commit? Well, assuming there's a shorthand for the option, I find it more natural to add these extra three characters on the 'add' line than going CTRL+P CTRL+A ALT+f ALT+f CTRL+w ci (or ^add^ci). Usually I don't want to commit freshly added files and changed, versioned files in one go. Often enough though, I do have additions and commits at the same time :) In the seldom cases where I'm just adding something, I'm usually lazy and go addremove;ci which is short enough because there's no list of filenames involved. I'd of suggested add commits automatically (or setting-based), but figured I wouldn't get very far with that.. So in the end, say, fossil add -c, is just a (personally perceived) usability improvement on the CLI. Regards, -Martin ___ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
[fossil-users] anything speaking against fossil add --commit ?
Often I will run the following two commands: fossil add list of files ^add^ci (i.e., fossil ci list of files) immediately afterwards. Sometimes I forget the second step and then do some funny stuff (changing trunks, merging etc.) until I stumble over the uncommitted files. Is there anything speaking against adding a --commit (and maybe --message) option to add so that it'll commit immediately? -Martin ___ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
