Re: move instead of copy

Yes, we wouldn’t want to make move-by-rename be the default behavior.  Though I am becoming convinced it could be a useful option for expert users (if someone were up for implementing it, which I am not volunteering to do :-)...

    - B

> On Sep 15, 2015, at 12:51 PM, Trevor Jim <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> As I recall, the reason for the copy is that sometimes move is not
> atomic.
> 
> For example, a move from one hard disk to another is actually a copy and
> a delete.  The copy could fail in the middle.
> 
> It is hard to tell how a move will be implemented from just the path of
> source and destination.
> 
> Using copy+delete instead of a move is therefore a safer approach, since
> Unison knows that copies can fail and takes this into account so that
> you do not lose data.
> 
> Something to keep in mind...
> 
> -Trevor

_______________________________________________
Unison-hackers mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.seas.upenn.edu/mailman/listinfo/unison-hackers