Nolan Darilek writes:
> If we're talking about adding "git" to the name because of this whole
> "rm" thing, we might as well consider "mercurial" as a candidate
> too. Mercurial behaves sensibly and removes the file automatically on
> rm. Naysayers aren't trying to make Fossil Git, we're just try
On Wed, 12 Dec 2012 23:42:29 -0300
Richie Adler
wrote:
> Sorry, I still think that the intention is to destroy what Fossil has
> of unique to offer to be able to say that Git or Mercurial it's the
> same and they should be preferred to Fossil.
>
> What's next? Replacing SQLite with individual fi
On 12/12/2012 08:42 PM, Richie Adler wrote:
What's next? Replacing SQLite with individual files?
Absolutely not, and statements like this do more harm than good because
they willfully disregard the point of what is being expressed. The point
is not to be alarmist and extreme, as statements l
Nolan Darilek decía, en el mensaje "Re: [fossil-users] why does `fossil rm'
not do the "real" thing?" del Miércoles, 12 de Diciembre de 2012 22:38:16:
> Naysayers aren't trying to make Fossil Git, we're just trying to make it
> do what most other VCSs do in these areas.
Sorry, I still think that
If we're talking about adding "git" to the name because of this whole
"rm" thing, we might as well consider "mercurial" as a candidate too.
Mercurial behaves sensibly and removes the file automatically on rm.
Naysayers aren't trying to make Fossil Git, we're just trying to make it
do what most
On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 3:13 PM, Chad Perrin wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 03:07:51PM -0800, Themba Fletcher wrote:
>> On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 3:04 PM, Richie Adler wrote:
>> > If that happens, please make sure to include "git" in the new name. That's
>> > what all the naysayers are trying to
On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 12:13 AM, Chad Perrin wrote:
> Screw that. Git makes exactly the kind of UI mistakes I'm talking about
> eliminating.
Well, one thing that I don't know whether to call "UI mistake", but it
is certainly an inconvenience, is that to obtain accurate status
information (simi
On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 03:07:51PM -0800, Themba Fletcher wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 3:04 PM, Richie Adler wrote:
> > If that happens, please make sure to include "git" in the new name. That's
> > what all the naysayers are trying to convert Fossil into, anyway.
>
> +1 :)
Screw that. Git
On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 3:04 PM, Richie Adler wrote:
> If that happens, please make sure to include "git" in the new name. That's
> what all the naysayers are trying to convert Fossil into, anyway.
+1 :)
___
fossil-users mailing list
fossil-users@lists.
Chad Perrin decía, en el mensaje "Re: [fossil-users] why does `fossil rm' not
do the "real" thing?" del Miércoles, 12 de Diciembre de 2012 18:22:53:
> I rather suspect that, if Fossil continues to grow in usage over time,
> and if it fails to implement sane defaults and options like what you just
I have made some great progress on my continuing quest for fire with
Fossil yesterday and today. In this episode, my juggling of
over-committed time cycled back around to answering questions about
branching and merging in the context of various development models
using Fossil.
In no way am I asha
On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 08:28:55AM -0500, Martin Gagnon wrote:
> Le 2012-12-12 06:28, Ramon Ribó a écrit :
> >
> > As I understand it, fossil currently deletes one file from disk when
> >doing and update if this file has been removed by another user.
> >
> > For me, it is incoherent that fossil
Le 2012-12-12 13:21, C. Thomas Stover a écrit :
Actually it turns out I can do what I want the existing private branch
feature. I noticed that on --push, --pull, and --clone there is a
--private option that says to include private branches.
So to use my earlier example, branch would be private,
On Wed, 12 Dec 2012 12:21:41 -0600
"C. Thomas Stover" wrote:
> Actually it turns out I can do what I want the existing private branch
> feature. I noticed that on --push, --pull, and --clone there is a
> --private option that says to include private branches.
The problem is in "private branchES
Actually it turns out I can do what I want the existing private branch
feature. I noticed that on --push, --pull, and --clone there is a
--private option that says to include private branches.
So to use my earlier example, branch would be private, and pushes to
sever1 would use the --private opti
On Dec 12, 2012, at 08:28 , Gour wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Dec 2012 18:59:59 -0600
> "C. Thomas Stover" wrote:
>
>> Is there some way to push just a specific branch to a server other
>> than the private branch feature?
>
> No, but it was discussed in the past...btw, I'd also like to have
> selectiv
Le 2012-12-12 06:28, Ramon Ribó a écrit :
As I understand it, fossil currently deletes one file from disk when
doing and update if this file has been removed by another user.
For me, it is incoherent that fossil does not do the same on commit.
Of course, only for the case that there is a c
As I understand it, fossil currently deletes one file from disk when doing
and update if this file has been removed by another user.
For me, it is incoherent that fossil does not do the same on commit. Of
course, only for the case that there is a copy of the file in the previous
version and tha
On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 1:24 AM, Jan Danielsson
wrote:
>
>I'm willing to bet that the number of times people will type "fossil
> mv/rm X Y" and not actually want to mv/rm X to Y just afterwards is
> vanishingly small. More to the point; let's reverse your "-s"-flag; I.e.:
>
>$ fossil mv X Y
19 matches
Mail list logo
