Re: [fossil-users] anything speaking against fossil add --commit ?

2012-07-10 Thread Martin S. Weber
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

Re: [fossil-users] anything speaking against fossil add --commit ?

2012-07-10 Thread Richard Hipp
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

Re: [fossil-users] anything speaking against fossil add --commit ?

2012-07-10 Thread Martin S. Weber
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

[fossil-users] anything speaking against fossil add --commit ?

2012-07-09 Thread Weber, Martin S
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