On Thu, Oct 2, 2014 at 7:29 PM, B Harder <brad.har...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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 weird thing is, he's got two "initial empty commits". i'm at a loss to explain that. > 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 ! > If both clones were detached from the start, that could explain it, it guess. http://chiselapp.com/user/ziggurat29/repository/z29-3rdParty/timeline -- ----- 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
