On Sat, Mar 14, 2015 at 10:28 AM, j. van den hoff <veedeeh...@googlemail.com > wrote:
> really a test case for "how does github feel to a newbie". answer: > awkward, to say the very least. FWIW i have had to use it a dozen times and still feel that way. > this is quite different to first time encounter with `fossil'. so one > probably should not look to closely on github on how to improve `fossil'. > ;-) LOL! > The network is primarily intended to show fork-related relationships. i.e. >> whose fork was created/merged at what point. In a way it's similar to the >> branch handling in fossil's timeline. github's workflow encourages using >> forks rather than branches (the end effect is similar, since a fork can be >> merged in at any time). >> > > my understanding was that a github "fork" is nothing but a clone and not > "really" part of the original project, no? Correct, but... > so it really is not comparable to a branch (be it `git' or `fossil'), no? > a git fork can be pulled (via a "pull request") into the original just like merging a branch, so the the effect is similar (not identical). > just my 2c (probably explaining the very obvious ;-)) > Nothing about git is obvious ;). -- ----- 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
