Re: [fossil-users] Bug in "fossil branch new"

On 2017-02-06 23:17:00, Andy Bradford wrote: > (...) > Because it doesn't matter what the name of the branch is. > (continues to show examples where Andy, as the human, uses the branch-name to > identify the branch) thanks for proving my point. Regards, -Martin

Re: [fossil-users] Bug in "fossil branch new"

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. I said that when you use ``fossil branch new'' that it doesn't imply that the following commit

Re: [fossil-users] Bug in "fossil branch new"

I think there is merit to this thought but I'd be careful. There is a risk of drowning important information which would do the opposite of helping "newbies". On Tue, Feb 7, 2017 at 10:24 AM, Richard Hipp wrote: > On 2/7/17, Andy Bradford wrote: > > >

Re: [fossil-users] Bug in "fossil branch new"

On 2/7/17, john lunzer wrote: > There is a risk > of drowning important information which would do the opposite of helping > "newbies". Agreed. Finding the right balance is tricky. -- D. Richard Hipp d...@sqlite.org ___

Re: [fossil-users] Bug in "fossil branch new"

If you're avoiding "fossil branch new" because it doesn't automatically switch and you got confused about the behavior doesn't that help show that it makes sense to automatically switch by default? I think the most "logical" design would be for the behavior of both branch creation methods to

Re: [fossil-users] Bug in "fossil branch new"

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

Re: [fossil-users] Bug in "fossil branch new"

On 2/7/17, Andy Bradford wrote: > > Maybe this isn't even sufficient, but I do believe it's an improvement. > Here is a crazy, crazy thought: Suppose we put lots and lots of extra text on many of the Fossil commands, explaining what just happened and the current

Re: [fossil-users] Bug in "fossil branch new"

Hmm, but isn't it usually the newbies that do NOT read any documentation? :) However, if this gets implemented here's a somewhat crazier thought to make it ever better for the general public: fossil set newbie-mode = where is blank indicating "I don't know what I'm supposed to be doing

Re: [fossil-users] Bug in "fossil branch new"

Thus said Richard Hipp on Tue, 07 Feb 2017 10:24:46 -0500: > Suppose we put lots and lots of extra text on many of the Fossil > commands, explaining what just happened and the current repository > state, after every command. Then provide a command like: > > fossil set newbie-hints

Re: [fossil-users] Bug in "fossil branch new"

Thus said "Martin S. Weber" on Tue, 07 Feb 2017 17:04:00 +0100: > 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"

Re: [fossil-users] Bug in "fossil branch new"

Thus said john lunzer on Tue, 07 Feb 2017 10:39:49 -0500: > If you're avoiding "fossil branch new" because it doesn't > automatically switch and you got confused about the behavior doesn't > that help show that it makes sense to automatically switch by default? Not that this