On 4/25/2011 4:08 PM, Richard Hipp wrote: > I can change that definition so that a "leaf" is a node with no children > of any kind in the same branch. This revision seems to be what Zed > wants. But Joshua seems to think that the current definition is better.
I'm now pretty sure I don't prefer the current definition--I did get a bit muddled in the leaf vs branch definitions, though. I'm perfectly fine with things working as Zed described. If I'm now following it right, reverting the leaf definition will solve Zed's problem and not create any problems for me. (No version of fossil I've used has caused any problem with this part of my workflow, so I think I'm safe.) (I've not ever experienced Zed's problem with getting leaves to close using the UI. It always WFM, but since I'm the only one working on almost all of my projects and I keep autosync on, I basically never end up with multiple leaves on one branch. Maybe there's a bug with closing leaves in that context.) -- Joshua Paine LetterBlock: Web Applications Built With Joy http://letterblock.com/ 301-576-1920 _______________________________________________ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
