Thus said Gour on Sat, 03 Aug 2013 21:25:01 +0200: > Moreover, iirc, there was also another request to be able to push > distinct branches which also, afaict, is not implemented. > > Both features are something which one takes for granted in every other > DVCS (bzr, darcs, git, hg...)
I distinctly recall reading a description of the differences between ``branches'' in Fossil and other DVCS (specifically Git), which likely explains why things are the way they are: http://www.fossil-scm.org/fossil/doc/trunk/www/fossil-v-git.wiki Also, Additional Notes in the following mentions that it isn't currently possible (which we already knew): http://www.fossil-scm.org/fossil/doc/trunk/www/private.wiki This is not to say that things shouldn't change in Fossil regarding how branches work. Regarding private branches, I do use them, however, I'm not yet certain when I would ever want to scrub them, singly, or as a whole. But it does seem like private branches could be used to work on things that don't get sync'ed and then merge them in when ready. This does mean, however, that the whole history of the development of whatever feature/bug is being worked on won't show up, but I see that as a benefit. Andy -- TAI64 timestamp: 4000000051fd5f39 _______________________________________________ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
