Am 10.07.2013 11:51, schrieb Stephan Beal: > On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 9:37 AM, Harald Oehlmann > <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > 1) fossil open repo > 2) fossil merge branch > 3) fossil commit > 4) And then, I go to the web interface and set the "closed leaf" > property of the branch. > > The last step would be natural for me to de done with the "fossil > commit". > > > Might it not make more sense for fossil to close the leaf when merging? > If it waits until commit then it has to remember and arbitrary number of > leaves for arbitrarily long (timespan between merge and commit) and then > close them all as part of the commit. The number of potential error > cases during the commit then explodes. > > Closing at merging is also not ideal because it often happens that a > merge gets tossed out in the process of trying to fix conflicts (very > often i have non-trivial merge conflicts i end up tossing out the merge > and starting over from a different angle).
Very good idea ! It is ok to also initiate it with the "fossil merge" and do it with "fossil commit". The fact to specify it with "fossil merge" has two advantages: - the closed branch tag is directly in the command, which is clearer - multiple merges may be closed or not by one commit. I personally would be glad, if I could already manage a single merge... -Harald _______________________________________________ fossil-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
