On Thu, 9 Feb 2012 17:02:19 +0400, Konstantin Khomoutov <flatw...@users.sourceforge.net> wrote: > On Thu, 9 Feb 2012 08:19:36 -0000 > "Eric" <e...@deptj.eu> wrote: > <snip> > > fossil update is concerned only with the branch you have in your > > checkout directory. If autosync is on it does a pull first, but > > that's a separate operation, and it is concerned only with artifacts > > in the repository and knows nothing about branches. > The case presented by the original poster involved the pull step which > appears to have suboptimal approach to reporting what we got from the > remote repository. If you have autosync turned off (as I do everywhere, > for instance) I just pull by hand, which changes nothing in > this regard. That's why I referred to Git which, when you do > "pulling" (it's called "fetching" in Git lingo) tells you "artifacts" > for which branches it received, so you have an immediate idea about > what has been changed on the remote. Hence my reference had nothing to > do with Git's *workflow* in particular.
It was not obvious whether you or the OP understood that this was a two-part process. Clearly you do. I really don't know why you say "suboptimal" - there's nothing wrong with preferring a different behaviour, but "suboptimal" is a whole different argument. > > I wish people would stop expecting fossil to behave like git, if it > > did you might as well use git. > Please keep religious zealotry out of this list. And you tell me to be sure I understand the intentions of a poster before I respond! No religious zealotry at all, but a fragment of a rational argument, namely that many people suggest git-like things without understanding why git and fossil are different, or that design differences make some things easy in one and hard in the other, or that it might be good to take a different approach, or that it might be a matter of opinion which is right and which is wrong. I think that too much of that sort of thing has the potential to harm fossil. Most of the above may not apply to you specifically, but it looked as if it did; I can only respond to what I see. > Or at least try not to express it unless you are 100% sure you > understood what the person to whose message you're responding to wanted > to state. Eric -- ms fnd in a lbry _______________________________________________ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
