> It is possible to "decouple" a branch, in theory. But the command to do > so > has never been written. On the other hand, it probably wouldn't be all > that hard. What don't you give it a go and submit it as a patch? > > On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 5:18 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Of course I can parse the timeline, get all revisions for a branch, >> manually update the working directory to each of them and then commit >> them >> to a new empty repository, but that's a lot of additional work. Maybe >> fossil can do this on its own? >> >> I know this sounds like an XY problem but I see no reason why doing this >> would be a bad idea: the original repo has only code - no wiki docs, no >> tickets, so extracting a branch to another repo won't lose anything I >> assume. Also, the original repo will remain intact so I'm not deleting >> any >> history. >>
Unfortunately I am no programmer and the amount of C knowledge I got would be only enough to write a hello world program. First I've hoped that fossil export would have a branch option - it didn't. Second I had a look at the actual output produced by fossil export but I didn't see anything similar to what appears in the timeline, so I could say "this thing belongs to revision SHA1SUM". So I guess my options are to decrease the priority of my task and patiently wait for better times, or to just do the decoupling manually, revision by revision. _______________________________________________ fossil-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
