Re: [fossil-users] Fix for stash-next pointer (fix for the fix)

On Aug 17, 2016, at 12:33 PM, Kain Abel wrote: > > Hi Warren, > > 2016-08-17 17:43 GMT+02:00 Warren Young : >> On Aug 16, 2016, at 6:45 AM, Kain Abel wrote: >>> Oh, that surprises me now. This implicit behavior is not explicit >>>

Re: [fossil-users] Fix for stash-next pointer (fix for the fix)

On Aug 16, 2016, at 6:45 AM, Kain Abel wrote: > > 2016-08-15 17:58 GMT+02:00 Warren Young : >> >> [...] All stashes go away when you close the repo. > > Oh, that surprises me now. This implicit behavior is not explicit > documented. There is no warning

Re: [fossil-users] Fix for stash-next pointer (fix for the fix)

Hi Warren, 2016-08-17 17:43 GMT+02:00 Warren Young : > On Aug 16, 2016, at 6:45 AM, Kain Abel wrote: >> Oh, that surprises me now. This implicit behavior is not explicit >> documented. There is no warning that all stashed changes will be also >> dropped when

Re: [fossil-users] Fix for stash-next pointer (fix for the fix)

On 8/17/2016 1:01 PM, Warren Young wrote: It would indeed be nice if Fossil told you up front, as you said. The documentation for --force doesn’t explain this second usage, either. It only talks about “uncommitted changes,” which is not quite the same thing as stashed changes, at

Re: [fossil-users] Fix for stash-next pointer (fix for the fix)

Just a crude thought: I know, fossil is not git ... but both was designed to preserve informations and to track their changes. (That is a absolute simplification.) Git has no open and close, but also stash. A former ;) git user would lose the stash without asking if he uses close (out of