Make that "fossil status or changes or extras or some combination thereof". On Apr 30, 2016 6:32 PM, "Scott Robison" <sc...@casaderobison.com> wrote:
> > On Apr 30, 2016 6:00 PM, "Steve Schow" <st...@bstage.com> wrote: > > > > I forgot one step in this process I want: > > > > > > On Apr 30, 2016, at 5:56 PM, Steve Schow <st...@bstage.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > fossil checkout trunk > > > (work on code) > > > fossil commit —branch mybranch > > > (work on more code) > > > fossil commit > > > (code review) > > At this point, you've presumably committed all changes in your working > copy to the branch. If that is correct... > > > > fossil update trunk -n > > > (resolve merge conflicts when they rarely occur ;-) > > ... There can be no merge conflicts here. You can only have merge > conflicts if you have uncommitted changes as I understand things. If all is > committed, all is well. > > What you want is really to make sure all in progress branch changes have > been committed or reverted before allowing update to trunk. fossil status > or changes seem more suited than update trunk -n > > > > fossil update trunk > > fossil merge mybranch > > (resolve conflicts if needed) > > > (final feature test) > > > fossil commit >
_______________________________________________ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
