Re: [fossil-users] fossil rm --hard dir1

2017-12-13 Thread Warren Young 
On Dec 13, 2017, at 2:21 PM, Zakero  wrote:
> 
> The "fossil clean" command has the "--emptydirs" option.  That might be 
> useful for the "rm" command as well.

If Fossil got that option, I’d probably forget that it existed a week after the 
change went in.  I’d end up saying something like

$ find . -type d -delete

instead.

One of the core issues here is the difficulty in making Fossil replicate POSIX 
semantics exactly, because they’re fairly complicated.  The same problem 
plagues the symlink implementation, or at least did until recently.  (I’m 
unsure, having not exercised it since the recent redesign.)

If Fossil had a mkdir command, I’d expect it to have an rmdir command to go 
with it, and then I’d *still* not expect rm to remove directories.
___
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] fossil rm --hard dir1

2017-12-13 Thread Zakero 
On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 3:01 PM, Warren Young  wrote:

> On Dec 13, 2017, at 1:03 PM, jungle Boogie 
> wrote:
> >
> > On 13 December 2017 at 07:58, Warren Young  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

Re: [fossil-users] fossil rm --hard dir1

2017-12-13 Thread Warren Young 
On Dec 13, 2017, at 1:03 PM, jungle Boogie  wrote:
> 
> On 13 December 2017 at 07:58, Warren Young  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.
___
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] fossil rm --hard dir1

2017-12-13 Thread jungle Boogie 
On 13 December 2017 at 07:58, Warren Young  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. Still, If I created the
directory, I don't want fossil to remove it (even though it would save
me extra typing).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_least_astonishment

-- 
---
inum: 883510009027723
sip: jungleboo...@sip2sip.info
___
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] fossil rm --hard dir1

2017-12-13 Thread Warren Young 
On Dec 13, 2017, at 6:21 AM, Tino Lange  wrote:
> 
> The directory/directories will keep existing!

Given that Fossil doesn’t know anything about directories, other than as 
containers for the files it manages, I’m not sure that isn’t the right thing.

To have Fossil remove intermediate directories means it is expected to remove 
things it doesn’t own.

Also, what happens if the directory isn’t empty, or if all the user wants is to 
clear the Fossil-managed files out of the directory but leave the directory 
structure intact?

I’d feel differently if Fossil owned the directories, but it doesn’t.  They’re 
mine; leave them alone!
___
fossil-users mailing list
fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org
http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users

[fossil-users] fossil rm --hard dir1

2017-12-13 Thread Tino Lange 
Hi!

When doing a 
$ fossil rm --hard dir1

it will unregister from fossil and then delete all files within the 
'dir1' hierarchy.

But: The directory/directories will keep existing!

I need to do a
$ rm -rf dir1
afterwards (so the whole --hard is mostly needless, since I need to do 
the additional "rm" anyhow).

Could this be fixed, please? At least in this usage scenario above one 
wants to have no 'dir1' after the fossil operation, or?

Thanks and best regards

Tino

___
fossil-users mailing list
fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org
http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users