On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 5:47 PM, David Mason <dma...@ryerson.ca> wrote:
> 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. > ,... > All true enough. _Changing_ them might be difficult due to historical momentum, but maybe we can put together at some some sort of chart or comparison/contrast doc of those roughly similar commands. i'm kind of a documentation nut, so i've written that down as something to work on in the next few days. > 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? > i can't compare it to hg, but compared to svn, branching in fossil is absolute child's play. i don't often use branches, basically only because of my own historical momentum, but when i _do_ use them in Fossil i never regret it (as i often have/do with svn). Easy peasy. -- ----- stephan beal http://wanderinghorse.net/home/stephan/ http://gplus.to/sgbeal "Freedom is sloppy. But since tyranny's the only guaranteed byproduct of those who insist on a perfect world, freedom will have to do." -- Bigby Wolf
_______________________________________________ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
