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

Thus said john lunzer on Sun, 05 Feb 2017 13:06:04 -0500: > Here is the test sequence: > > cd fossils > fossil new testrepo.fossil > mkdir ../testrepo > cd ../testrepo > fossil open ../fossils/testrepo.fossil > fossil branch new myfirstbranch trunk > fossil commit --allow-empty --branch

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 "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 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 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

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"

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 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"

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 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"

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"

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 Richard Hipp on Mon, 06 Feb 2017 14:49:30 -0500: > Rather than break legacy scripts, perhaps a warning message that says > "the new branch has been created but you are not currently on that > branch - type "fossil update BRANCHNAME" to go there" or similar? Come to think of it,

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

Thus said Richard Hipp on Mon, 06 Feb 2017 14:49:30 -0500: > Rather than break legacy scripts, perhaps a warning message that says > "the new branch has been created but you are not currently on that > branch - type "fossil update BRANCHNAME" to go there" or similar? I think a warning

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

Thus said "Martin S. Weber" on Mon, 06 Feb 2017 18:10:15 +0100: > Well, given fossil's CLI requires BRANCH-NAME as input, how can the > following commit not go to the same branch? Because it doesn't matter what the name of the branch is. It's just a tag. What is really critical is the

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

On Feb 6, 2017, at 9:18 AM, Richard Hipp wrote: > > Does anybody else having any feelings one way or another about this? I’m not sure I’ve run into *quite* the same case, but a related one I did run into recently was trying to migrate from a “release” tag (as Fossil itself

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

Subject: Re: [fossil-users] Bug in "fossil branch new" On 2/6/17, Richard Hipp <d...@sqlite.org> wrote: That is correct, and it is by design. Fossil allows any number of branches to share the same name. On second thought, perhaps it would be worthwhile to enhance Fossil s

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

A warning would minimally address the issue but there would still be a behavioral inconsistency with "fossil commit --branch" which does automatically move you into the new branch. This inconsistency opens the door to confusion. That said, I think both "fossil branch new" and "fossil commit

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

On 6 February 2017 at 11:49, Richard Hipp wrote: > Rather than break legacy scripts, perhaps a warning message that says > "the new branch has been created but you are not currently on that > branch - type "fossil update BRANCHNAME" to go there" or similar? I'd prefer a warning

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

On 2/6/17, john lunzer wrote: > One more thing I think is necessary to mostly eliminate the confusion. > Currently "fossil branch new BRANCHNAME" is not followed by an automatic > "fossil update BRANCHNAME". This I think will be surprising when the user > goes to do their first

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

On 2/6/17, john lunzer wrote: > > How is this not a bug? A "bug" means the software gets the wrong answer. That the software does not match the mental model of new users is not a bug. it is (perhaps) a usability concern that can be addressed, but that is different from a bug.

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

One more thing I think is necessary to mostly eliminate the confusion. Currently "fossil branch new BRANCHNAME" is not followed by an automatic "fossil update BRANCHNAME". This I think will be surprising when the user goes to do their first "fossil commit" thinking they are committing to the

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

Haha, please disregard my previous message. You posted while I was still typing the other. Your action will mostly take care of the issue. Thank you for considering my situation. If I may ask though, if autosync is off how would the situation of two developers creating a branch by the same name

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

On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 11:13 AM, Richard Hipp wrote: > > > > > After the second "fossil commit --branch myfirstbranch" no new branch is > > created, commited to the same branch as the after the first "fossil > commit > > --branch myfirstbranch" > > Actually, it did create a new

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

On 2/6/17, bch wrote: > I haven't ever run into this issue, but what you're wondering about sounds > reasonable on the surface. "Principle of least surprise", and all... > The trunk version of Fossil will now only permit the --branch option on a "fossil commit" if the

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

On 2017-02-06 11:13:46, Richard Hipp wrote: > (...) > Probably you are coming from a different DVCS that requires branches > to be created in advance of the commit and that also requires branch > names to be unique. Fossil has neither of these constraints, and so > it operates a little

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

I haven't ever run into this issue, but what you're wondering about sounds reasonable on the surface. "Principle of least surprise", and all... -bch On Feb 6, 2017 08:18, "Richard Hipp" wrote: > On 2/6/17, Richard Hipp wrote: > > > > That is correct, and it

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

On 2/6/17, Richard Hipp wrote: > > That is correct, and it is by design. Fossil allows any number of > branches to share the same name. On second thought, perhaps it would be worthwhile to enhance Fossil so that it issued a warning if you include a --branch argument on "fossil

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

On 2/5/17, john lunzer wrote: > Here is the test sequence: > > cd fossils > fossil new testrepo.fossil > mkdir ../testrepo > cd ../testrepo > fossil open ../fossils/testrepo.fossil > fossil branch new myfirstbranch trunk > fossil commit --allow-empty --branch myfirstbranch -m