On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 2:01 PM, Stephan Beal <sgb...@googlemail.com> wrote: > Accidental forks "happen to me" with alarming frequency, and i would never > notice them without the timeline. They're primarily caused, apparently, by > my not being careful enough when i disable autosync and work on the same > code from multiple machines.
Accidental forks will arise nearly any time work is done on multiple machines and the connections between them are not always active (such as turning off auto-sync, or disconnecting your network connection). But one of the advantages of using a distributed version control system is the ability to work "off line" and resync at reasonable intervals. > i've personally never really understood the reason for leaves. That's not to > say they're unnecessary, just that i don't understand them. Is it correct to > summarize leaves as "the tip version of any given branch/fork"? i've read > the definitions given in this thread, but "i just don't get it" because i > don't understand the terminology of the fossil model well enough. It is reasonable to describe leaves as "the tip version of a branch or fork". As for the terminology, "leaf" is a continuation of the tree metaphore. Whatever you call it, a leaf is a place to continue development with out creating either a branch or a fork. They are also a means for locating forks. _______________________________________________ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
