On Fri, 17 Apr 2015 06:56:13 +0200, Andy Bradford
amb-fos...@bradfords.org wrote:
Thus said Scott Robison on Thu, 16 Apr 2015 21:00:50 -0600:
Partly I think it is because your test case consists of a single file
of a single line, which means probably (I would think) every merge
I can imagine a lot of people being annoyed if auto resolution was to add a
file previously deleted from a branch back to the branch. I can see that being
every bit as confusing to them as it not being re-added is to you. Just as my
deleted text a month ago was to me.
The difference is that
On Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at 09:04:12PM -0400, Ron W wrote:
On Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at 8:25 PM, Andy Bradford amb-fos...@bradfords.org
wrote:
And a fork that ends in being merged is also no longer a fork.
I disagree. While it might be the most common case, merging does not
explicitly state any
This is on a Win7 machine (if it matters). A simple way to reproduce (f =
fossil):
f new xxx.fossil
f o xxx.fossil
mkdir a\a
dir a\a\xxx
f add a
f com -m Initial
f mv a\a b
f close
Based on help screen, and usual behavior of mv, I would expect subdirectory a\a
to be now known as b, and of
2015-04-17 12:02 GMT+02:00 Joerg Sonnenberger jo...@britannica.bec.de:
On Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at 09:04:12PM -0400, Ron W wrote:
On Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at 8:25 PM, Andy Bradford amb-fos...@bradfords.org
...
I disagree. While it might be the most common case, merging does not
explicitly state any
On Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 01:07:50PM +0200, Jan Nijtmans wrote:
2015-04-17 12:02 GMT+02:00 Joerg Sonnenberger jo...@britannica.bec.de:
On Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at 09:04:12PM -0400, Ron W wrote:
On Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at 8:25 PM, Andy Bradford amb-fos...@bradfords.org
...
I disagree. While it might
github calling the project clone maintained on the server side a fork (I
believe that's what it is, right?).
100% correct; a Github fork is a server-side clone.
A Github fork is also part of the project fork network. This membership
allows you to propose changes from your copy of the
On 4/16/15, Steve Stefanovich s...@stef.rs wrote:
Richard, do you have a view on this?
I am following this conversation closely, as well as the discussion
regarding forks. But I don't have any free cycles available to work
on this, or even to comment on it, at the moment.
--
D. Richard Hipp
On Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 7:24 AM, Joerg Sonnenberger jo...@britannica.bec.de
wrote:
As discussed earlier, a fork means more than one
leaf for the same branch.
And merging the leaf of a branch to another branch (maybe trunk) does not
make that leaf not-a-leaf. So why should merging a fork-leaf
Fossil simply defines it:
Having more than one leaf in the check-in DAG is called a fork.
After re-reading the wiki section that you pointed out I have a much better
understanding of how Fossil defines a fork. Thanks for pointing that out.
What I'm surprised at, after following both
Hello,
Did you mean for your reply to go only to me? You did not CC the Fossil
list.
On Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at 9:07 PM, Steve Stefanovich s...@stef.rs wrote:
*From: *Ron W
*Sent: *Friday, 17 April 2015 11:04
*To: *Fossil SCM user's discussion
*Reply To: *Fossil SCM user's discussion
Can fossil be used to apply a diff patch (such as that created by the diff
command)?___
fossil-users mailing list
fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org
http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
On Apr 17, 2015, at 2:23 PM, to...@acm.org wrote:
Can fossil be used to apply a diff patch (such as that created by the diff
command)?
Fossil itself doesn’t do that. You use the patch(1) utility for that, which
expects a unified diff. (“fossil diff” produces output in that format by
Note also that you can tailor your diff output w/ fossil set diff-command
eg: fossil set diff-command diff -bu
On 4/17/15, Warren Young w...@etr-usa.com wrote:
On Apr 17, 2015, at 2:23 PM, to...@acm.org wrote:
Can fossil be used to apply a diff patch (such as that created by the diff
Thank you but I wanted this for a Win7 machine, not Linux.
(I have MINGW installed but its 'patch' is a bit unstable as it crashes most
of the time besides not being available on most Win7 machines.)
That's why I was hoping fossil would be able to eat its own ... diff
Bundle is not good when
Ah, wonders of fiddling with email on mobile... (BTW, it did go on the list,
but just the quote without my reply).
What I meant to say here is that the whole confusion about forks is due to the
fact that they branch out under the same tag. I can't see the case where is
this ever desirable.
Ah, wonders of fiddling with email on mobile... (BTW, it did go on the list,
but just the quote without my reply).
What I meant to say here is that the whole confusion about forks is due to the
fact that they branch out under the same tag. I can't see the case where is
this ever desirable.
Thus said j. van den hoff on Fri, 17 Apr 2015 07:51:26 +0200:
but if changing the terminology really is a seriously considered
issue, than I cannot abstain from proposing shoot instead (which
would open the theoretical possibility to indicate it as `SHOOT!' in
the CLI timeline
On Apr 17, 2015, at 4:41 PM, to...@acm.org wrote:
I was hoping fossil would be able to eat its own … diff
patch(1) is the tool Larry Wall was famous for writing before he created Perl.
It is one of those tools complex enough that there are no clones.
There is a fork around licensing issues.
19 matches
Mail list logo
