On Sun, Apr 05, 2015 at 01:56:06PM -0700, Matt Welland wrote: > On Sun, Apr 5, 2015 at 12:48 PM, Joerg Sonnenberger <jo...@britannica.bec.de > > wrote: > > > On Sun, Apr 05, 2015 at 12:39:28PM -0700, Matt Welland wrote: > > > The auto fork merge is the same as the automatic merge that one of the > > fork > > > creators would have experienced if they had done their commit a few > > minutes > > > later. They would have gotten a "fossil would fork" message, done "fossil > > > update" (where the merge happens) and committed. If there is a conflict > > the > > > auto fork merge would be canceled obviously. > > > > Note that just because a merge passes automatically doesn't mean it did > > the correct thing. Trying to hide it sounds like a recipe for head > > aches. > > > > If that is a genuine concern then you best turn off the auto merging that > happens every time you do "fossil update". My point above is that the auto > merge is *exactly* the same as the merge that would have happened had one > of the users done a "fossil update" and pulled in the changes made by the > other user.
The difference is I don't hit commit blindly after that merge. I either test it by running a build or by reading the diff or whatever. Joerg _______________________________________________ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
