On Tue, Aug 09, 2011 at 11:27:09AM -0400, Joshua Paine wrote: > On 8/9/2011 11:19 AM, Matt Welland wrote: > > Note: It is annoying to me that "fossil branch new foo" won't simply > > branch from the current node. > > +1 > > > By the way, how does "update" differ from "co" in your step 2 below? > > If you have no edited files, they have the same effect. But if you have > some edits that are not yet committed, co will fail unless called with > --force, in which case it will overwrite, whereas update will merge your > uncommitted changes in to the new branch's files as uncommitted changes.
Moreover, 'co' is a much slower operation. I think of 'update' as: bring my current working directory changes to the check-in I say, considering what I have checked out. And 'checkout' as: regardless of what I have in my working directory, bring there the files for the named check-in. _______________________________________________ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
