> On Feb 1, 2015, at 7:08 AM, Jan Danielsson <jan.m.daniels...@gmail.com> wrote: > > The annoying thing is that when it fails, it wipes away whatever > progress it has made.
Yes, well, that’s the nature of transactional DB updates: all or nothing. > How difficult would it be to allow fossil to pick up where it left > off in such a case? Are you seriously asking for Fossil to allow a local clone to be in an inconsistent state after an error? _______________________________________________ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
