This is a very interesting discussion. 1) It sounds like checkout, open, and update should all be part of the command rationalization discussion as they seem to overlap. Making them sort-of synonyms but with different default *could* work (e.g. checkout === update -overwite, update === checkout -keep, etc.) i.e. you could always use e.g, checkout, but with various switches, or always use update with (mostly the same) switches plus the one that makes it act like checkout.
2) I haven't actually used fossil yet... it's on my todo list, but mercurial works well enough that I haven't found the time to change over. And I don't use branches... Ron and Matt make a strong case for why I perhaps should. Anyone have a good reference to why and workflows for using branches. Are branches easier to deal with in fossil? Thanks, ../Dave On 20 March 2014 12:28, Ron Wilson <ronw.m...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 11:44 AM, Matt Welland <estifo...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> A comment to those who find they seldom branch: I use branching and >> merging extensively as a tool to organize work and enable flights of fancy >> and exploration. Obviously it depends highly on the problems you are solving >> but I suspect that if you aren't branching then either you are working on a >> relatively linear and straightforward problem or you aren't using fossil to >> its fullest. > > > When I first started using "feature" branches, it took me a while to get > used to "reseting" my working space to current baseline after finishing and > committing something. After a while, it became automatic. It is a very > useful technique, even for "solo" projects. > > > _______________________________________________ > fossil-users mailing list > fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org > http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users > _______________________________________________ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
