On Fri, Sep 5, 2014 at 3:36 PM, Matt Welland <estifo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'd like support for moving nodes around a branch - but I want it to > produce new branches. I.e. it is an additive process, not a lossy one. I > had one really horrible merge where 100's of lines of code were > conflicting. By merging node by node starting near the baseline node I got > through it but I suspect in this one case something akin to rebase would > have been very very nice. Now my timeline looks a bit like a 32 bit bus > being routed around a circuit board. Cleaning that up would be nice but it > isn't truly necessary. > I'm guessing you committed your merges to a new, parallel branch? (BTW, seems your image URL got removed somehow. The img element had height and width attributes, but no src attribute, so displayed as an empty box with a border.) I've lost work in private branches by forgetting that they are not sync'd > by default. The trust in not losing work that fossil generates can bite you > when intermittently working in a lossy mode. > I have a cron job to sync my personal repos with each other using: fossil sync --private URL I have been considering options for sync-ing only when there's something to push. I could just use a bash alias to do the same command, but the cron job reduces the risk from forgetting.
_______________________________________________ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
