On Tue, Aug 9, 2011 at 10:28 AM, tpero...@compumation.com <
tpero...@compumation.com> wrote:
>
>
> fossil branch new Test 5947928ba****
>
>
>
>
>
Change the subject: Please help me to understand why people want to create
a new branch before adding changes to that branch, rather than just waiting
until they check-in their edits? I'm not being sarcastic or critical here.
A lot of people do this and I sincerely want to understand the motivation.
The way I've *always* done things is:
(1) ... edit files
(2) fossil commit -branch new-branch
But I see many people want to do a 4-step process:
(1) fossil branch new new-branch
(2) fossil update new-branch
(3) ... edit files
(4) fossil commit
That seems like so much more trouble. What am I missing? Is it that people
are unaware that they can make edits that are destined to go into a branch
before that branch actually exists? Do I need to improve on the
documentation? Or does creating the branch first, before making file edits,
just fit most peoples mental model better? Are there some advantages to
creating branches in advance that I am missing?
Part of the motivation for this question is that, because I never use
"fossil branch new" myself, there tend to be more bugs in that command than
in the other commands that I use daily. If there is a good reason to do
"fossil branch new" then maybe I'll start using it myself and those bugs
will get fixed sooner. Or if not, maybe I'll deprecate "fossil branch new"
- or at least print a warning and ask for confirmation: "Creating branches
ahead of check-ins is unnecessary. Are you sure you want to do this? (y/N)"
Please explain. Thanks!
--
D. Richard Hipp
d...@sqlite.org
_______________________________________________
fossil-users mailing list
fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org
http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
