I haven't ever run into this issue, but what you're wondering about sounds reasonable on the surface. "Principle of least surprise", and all...
-bch On Feb 6, 2017 08:18, "Richard Hipp" <d...@sqlite.org> wrote: > On 2/6/17, Richard Hipp <d...@sqlite.org> wrote: > > > > That is correct, and it is by design. Fossil allows any number of > > branches to share the same name. > > On second thought, perhaps it would be worthwhile to enhance Fossil so > that it issued a warning if you include a --branch argument on "fossil > commit" with the same name as an existing open branch, and actually > fail the commit unless the --force flag is also present. Perhaps such > a change would make Fossil easier to transition to from other systems. > Does anybody else having any feelings one way or another about this? > -- > D. Richard Hipp > d...@sqlite.org > _______________________________________________ > 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
