Hi Dave. This is a "fork" (unintentional branch). It would happen (for example) if two different clones of a repository are updated independently of each other, and then sync'd. You can merge the "errant trunk" back to the "good trunk" without ill effect (minding you might have to do conflict resolution). If you think of the case of two different clones being updated as I described above, then ultimately merged together (creating a fork in a branch), you'll see the DAG is maintained. The labels for the branchname are maintained too, and the effect you see (two Trunk branches) is consistent w/ the model. Re-merge them and keep on developing !
-bch On 10/2/14, dave <d...@ziggurat29.com> wrote: > Hi list; > > Today I opened one of my repos, and expected to see some stuff that is in > 'trunk'. However, it was empty as the day it was born. I could see all my > branches via 'branches', and could update to them, but when I would update > to 'trunk' it would always be empty. Odd, I thought, I'm quite sure I put > stuff there, but 'oh, well', I thought, and I checked some stuff into it > that I had expected to already be there, and then also made a branch for > some other things, and checked them in, too. > > When I look at the timeline via fossil ui, I very clearly see I now have > two > trunks, the original one, and this new one. I didn't even think this was > possible, because I believed that fossil repos only have one unified DAG. > Am I insane (er, 'am I in error', I mean to ask), or is this normal, and > due > to something odd that I did (though I can't imagine what it would be). > > This is not a secret repo; you can look here if curious: > fossil clone http://chiselapp.com/user/ziggurat29/repository/z29-3rdParty > 3rdParty.fossil > > Thanks! > > -dave > _______________________________________________ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
