On Sat, Mar 5, 2011 at 8:27 PM, Ron Wilson <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 1:28 PM, Joerg Sonnenberger > <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Fri, Mar 04, 2011 at 01:06:46PM -0500, Ron Wilson wrote: > >> So, Fossil automatically creates a new branch with not even an > >> informational message saying it did that? > >> > >> That seems like a bug to me. > > > > It's not a branch. It's a fork. For more details, see: > > Regardless of terminology, some kind of notification should be given > during the push (or pull) that results in the fork. The documentation > indicates a warning would have been issued at commit time had the > Fossil instance been online and autosunc enabled, so why not during > the push/pull/sync operation? > (1) The synchronization module has no understanding of checkins, branches, forks, and whatnot. Giving it that knowledge would be an undesirable mingling of what is now completely separate functionality. (2) Who's to say that fork wasn't intentional. Maybe a user deliberately forked. Should this cause a warning? (3) The difference between a fork and a branch is all in the tags, which might arrive at a later time. Should the warning be retracted if the tag arrives late? "Opps - that fork I warned you about earlier - it was really a branch - Sorry!" What if a tag gets cancelled. "Hey! That branch over there just turned into a fork!" (4) Forks are plainly evident on the timeline. If you have any interest in the project, you should already be looking at the timeline on a regular basis. You'll see any forks then. Isn't that sufficient notification. > _______________________________________________ > fossil-users mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users > -- D. Richard Hipp [email protected]
_______________________________________________ fossil-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
