On 25 Apr 2011, at 21:08, "Zed A. Shaw" <zeds...@zedshaw.com> wrote:
> Branches are not leaves. A leaf is unnamed while a branch has a name. > Branches shouldn't close, but an unnamed leaf that gets merged should > just go away. > I thought that maybe the right question is "why do we care about leaves?". As far as I can see: 1. To look for forgotten forks. There was a fairly serious one of these quite early in Fossil's history, though with proper branches and the graph on the timeline it probably wouldn't happen today. 2. To close them. This applies to the tip of a named branch and to the tip of a "branch" resulting from a fork. In both cases the intent is to say "Don't create a child of this.", but it doesn't matter if it was merged into somewhere else before being closed. It is also ok to use it as the base of a new named branch (what workflow would lead to this?). Looking back at the above, I'm not sure I've actually added anything to the debate, but anyway ... Regards, Eric _______________________________________________ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
