On Wed, Mar 9, 2011 at 3:52 PM, Eric <[email protected]> wrote: > Finally, I don't think there is any way to safely have automatic merging > of forks.
This I agree with and never intended to suggest that forks should ever be automatically merged. > And, as Richard said, what is a fork? Something I want to avoid like the plague. Your workflow seems, strictly followed, should (somewhat) minimize the risk of an accidental fork, however, you imply that you do intentionally start forks. I suppose if you make sure to either close the fork by merging, or tag it as a branch, before pushing your changes, then that should be ok. It seems to me that forks are something that are all too easy to "loose". I do not see any advantages to creating a fork rather than a branch. If anything, all this discussion just reinforces the advice (from some people) that creating a branch for each and every task/change package is the right thing to do - especially when using a DVCS. I do realise that accidental forks are inevitable, so anything that the tool does to help find forks will help the overall development process. _______________________________________________ fossil-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
