On Mon, Apr 6, 2015 at 2:53 AM, Joerg Sonnenberger <jo...@britannica.bec.de> wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 05, 2015 at 02:59:27PM -0700, Matt Welland wrote: > > I understand (mostly) why git > > doesn't have this problem, it makes no pretense about being centralized > and > > it doesn't allow the fork to happen by blocking the push that is "behind" > > the tip. How do the other DSCM systems handle this problem? > > It certainly happen with git except you *can't* use temporary forks when > it makes sense. Why people continue to sell lack of forks as a feature > is beyond me. Seriously, merge or die is not a solution. This is not > about pretending to oe centralized either... > I thought forks were blocked by the push in git. What scenario can lead to dual heads in git? Fossil "pretending" to be centralized is a fantastic feature. For me at least this *is* about factors that make Fossil simple to learn and use. Autosync is a plus. Forks are a minus. > > Joerg > _______________________________________________ > fossil-users mailing list > fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org > http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users >
_______________________________________________ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
