On 2017-02-07 07:59:03, Andy Bradford wrote: > Thus said "Martin S. Weber" on Tue, 07 Feb 2017 11:07:55 +0100: > > > thanks for proving my point. > > You're welcome. I never said branch names don't identify a branch, nor > that they are meaningless.
drh said branch names don't identify a branch, not you. If names did identify branches, there would be no way to have two separate branches of the same name, as the name would uniquely identify a branch. It doesn't, though. > I said that when you use ``fossil branch > new'' that it doesn't imply that the following commit will be on that > branch. a fossil update following the branch new would be more user-friendly indeed, at least IMHO. My point is, what is the rationale for names not identifying branches uniquely. Why can I multiple branches off of several basis that have the same name? See my previous email with the fossil command log output how even fossil assumes the samely named branches are the same (by outputting one leaf as "current" and not the other, whereas, if these are indeed separate branches, both leaves of the same-named branch name need to be "current"). > > And given the following: > > > This could be mitigated, by keeping the same design, with the CLI > > actually outputting an identity of the branch that can be used to > > select that specific branch. If the name is but a tag, do output the > > actual identity. Problem then becomes one of the user-unfriendliness > > of entering hashes for symbolic names (why have symbolic names if they > > are worthless?). > > Does not Fossil allow the use of names for most operations and will > attempt to resolve them in a deterministic fashion? Who claimed that > they are worthless? Well, worthless in its ultimate ratio in its current state (aka playing devil's advocate). Deterministically picking the wrong thing doesn't help. See the email with the fossil output. If I can only pick the "other" dev branch by its hash, then the name of that "other" dev branch has become worthless, as it will not resolve to the older one. Regards, -Martin _______________________________________________ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
