A warning would minimally address the issue but there would still be a behavioral inconsistency with "fossil commit --branch" which does automatically move you into the new branch. This inconsistency opens the door to confusion.
That said, I think both "fossil branch new" and "fossil commit --branch" should provide feedback as to which branch is "active". This explicit communication will help new users regardless of the decided behavior. On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 2:50 PM, jungle Boogie <jungleboog...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 6 February 2017 at 11:49, Richard Hipp <d...@sqlite.org> wrote: > > Rather than break legacy scripts, perhaps a warning message that says > > "the new branch has been created but you are not currently on that > > branch - type "fossil update BRANCHNAME" to go there" or similar? > > I'd prefer a warning over a assumed automatic update. > > > -- > ------- > inum: 883510009027723 > sip: jungleboo...@sip2sip.info > _______________________________________________ > 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
