2013/8/2 Andy Bradford
amb-sendok-1377995615.lfipjljlncecmjghe...@bradfords.org:
Does this mean that the merged fork is no longer a leaf at all? If this
is the case, why assign a closed tag to it?
I never tried fossil merge --integrate for merging a fork before, but
it seems to me that
2013/8/2 Jan Nijtmans jan.nijtm...@gmail.com:
2013/8/2 Andy Bradford
amb-sendok-1377995615.lfipjljlncecmjghe...@bradfords.org:
Does this mean that the merged fork is no longer a leaf at all? If this
is the case, why assign a closed tag to it?
...
Using --integrate makes it impossible for the
2013/8/2 Jan Nijtmans jan.nijtm...@gmail.com:
If the merged is not a leaf anymore, due to the commit itself, I
would expect this function to protect from adding a closed tag
(even though it doesn't really harm here).
Hm.
Bug fixed here:
Thus said Jan Nijtmans on Thu, 01 Aug 2013 10:03:36 +0200:
Thanks for your testing and your feedback! It's on trunk now. I used
merge --integrate when doing that.
One other thing I noticed is that when merging in a forked trunk with
--integrate, it will explicitly close the trunk, which
Thus said Jan Nijtmans on Tue, 30 Jul 2013 10:11:52 +0100:
http://www.fossil-scm.org/index.html/info/2015bbd55d
Still no objections, anyone? I think it's ready to be integrated into
trunk (using merge --integrate, of course), but another round of
evaluation never hurts!
It might be
Thus said Andy Bradford on 31 Jul 2013 20:37:19 -0600:
It might be a little late in the game, but why is it called integrate?
Maybe I missed the discussion about why it is called that---I'll scour
the archives.
After reading the archives it does appear that --integrate, while not
quite as
2013/7/12 Stephan Beal sgb...@googlemail.com:
On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 10:25 AM, Jan Nijtmans wrote:
Well, just try out the merge-integrate branch. I would say
the glass is full again.;-)
Indeed it is! i like what you've done :)
I made one additional change: adding states
On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 10:11:52AM +0100, Jan Nijtmans wrote:
2013/7/12 Stephan Beal sgb...@googlemail.com:
On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 10:25 AM, Jan Nijtmans wrote:
Well, just try out the merge-integrate branch. I would say
the glass is full again.;-)
Indeed it is! i like what you've
On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 11:11 AM, Jan Nijtmans jan.nijtm...@gmail.comwrote:
I made one additional change: adding states
UPDATED_BY_INTEGR and ADDED_BY_INTEGR
For a moment i thought you were trying to save 1 byte from INTEGER and i
was going to heckle you about it ;). But i see now that it's
2013/7/30 Lluís Batlle i Rossell vi...@viric.name:
Why INTEGR, and not INTEGRATE?
2013/7/30 Stephan Beal sgb...@googlemail.com:
For a moment i thought you were trying to save 1 byte from INTEGER and i was
going to heckle you about it ;). But i see now that it's INTEGRATE. How
about
2013/7/30 Lluís Batlle i Rossell vi...@viric.name:
About the code starting at line 1693, it looks to me like it runs in any case.
Does this change only add a new --integrate, or it also changes the
behaviour
of usual merges?
That code does an additional pass over the vmerge table, in order
On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 10:45:31AM +0100, Jan Nijtmans wrote:
2013/7/30 Lluís Batlle i Rossell vi...@viric.name:
About the code starting at line 1693, it looks to me like it runs in any
case.
Does this change only add a new --integrate, or it also changes the
behaviour
of usual
2013/7/30 Lluís Batlle i Rossell vi...@viric.name:
But maybe it should not run unless in 'integrate' mode?
That's not possible. This code is part of fossil commit while
the --integrate option is from fossil merge. The fossil commit
needs to know whether a previous fossil merge had the
2013/7/11 Harald Oehlmann harald.oehlm...@elmicron.de:
Looks really helpful and well thought (but I am even more in Stephans
position to stay quiet due to big lack of understanding...)
Implementation is complete now and well-tested in the
merge-integrate branch. Feedback welcome! Closing a
Am 12.07.2013 10:25, schrieb Jan Nijtmans:
Well, just try out the merge-integrate branch. I would say
the glass is full again.;-)
Congratulation, very impressive !
- Harald
___
fossil-users mailing list
fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org
2013/7/10 Stephan Beal sgb...@googlemail.com:
That well surpasses my understanding of how merging is tracked, so i'll just
be quiet now ;).
Well, merge-tracking is a part of fossil which I understand very
well. So I did just a little bit hacking:
Am 11.07.2013 11:07, schrieb Jan Nijtmans:
2013/7/10 Stephan Beal sgb...@googlemail.com:
That well surpasses my understanding of how merging is tracked, so i'll just
be quiet now ;).
Well, merge-tracking is a part of fossil which I understand very
well. So I did just a little bit hacking:
On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 9:37 AM, Harald Oehlmann
harald.oehlm...@elmicron.de wrote:
1) fossil open repo
2) fossil merge branch
3) fossil commit
4) And then, I go to the web interface and set the closed leaf
property of the branch.
The last step would be natural for me to de done with the
Am 10.07.2013 11:51, schrieb Stephan Beal:
On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 9:37 AM, Harald Oehlmann
harald.oehlm...@elmicron.de mailto:harald.oehlm...@elmicron.de wrote:
1) fossil open repo
2) fossil merge branch
3) fossil commit
4) And then, I go to the web interface and set the
On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 11:57 AM, Harald Oehlmann
harald.oehlm...@elmicron.de wrote:
Am 10.07.2013 11:51, schrieb Stephan Beal:
...
Closing at merging is also not ideal because it often happens that a
merge gets tossed out in the process of trying to fix conflicts (very
often i have
2013/7/10 Stephan Beal sgb...@googlemail.com:
i might have over-thought that problem: closing on merge probably isn't a
problem here because if the leaf is closed that doesn't hinder us at all.
Closing a leaf keeps us from committing to it, but not from pulling from it.
To me closing at merge
On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 4:56 PM, Jan Nijtmans jan.nijtm...@gmail.comwrote:
2013/7/10 Stephan Beal sgb...@googlemail.com:
To me closing at merge time sounds like the overall easier approach (but
i'm
very possibly ignoring/missing details/complications which i'm hoping
another list member
22 matches
Mail list logo
