On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 12:54 PM, mlfconv <mlf.c...@gmail.com> wrote: > basically i don't want Fossil to perform a merge of A2 and B2 (A is the > master branch) but insert another file which only acts as a merge and is > tagged or labeled as merge but no actual merge is performed by Fossil, A3 is > only inserted instead of merging (A3 actually is a file that merged two > distinct features from A2 and B2 which is why I want to keep it as > historical record instead of doing an actual merge, also B2 evolved into B3 > after "merge" into A3.
As long as you don't mind that the revision graph will not show any indication of a merge, you can just commit A3 as is. If you do want the graph to show a merge, you can do a fossil merge, then replace the result with your A3 before commiting. (As I mentioned, fossil merge does not automatically commit the result of a merge. In your case, it would merge changes from B into your working copy of A2, leaving the resulting files for you to review/edit/replace, then you have to do the actual commit.) _______________________________________________ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
