On Mon, Apr 6, 2015 at 3:48 PM, Matt Welland <mattrwell...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Mon, Apr 6, 2015 at 10:05 AM, James Moger <james.mo...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> By default non-fast-forward pushes (fork in Fossil terms) are blocked.
>>
>
> This is what I thought. So what technical obstacles are there preventing
> fossil from adopting this behavior?
>

I don't think they should be blocked, but the upstream repo should detect
them and warn about them. (which I outlined in an earlier post)


> One idea: all blobs could be sync'd but blobs would need to be blessed
> before becoming part of the official fossil record. Various mechanisms
> might exist for such blessing. The anti-fork mechanism: before a node is
> blessed it would need to prove that the node it was derived from had no
> children unless the branch name was different. Anyone trying to push a
> non-blessed blob would get a big fat warning and the onus would be on them
> to resolve at their end before trying to sync again.
>

I think this is too complicated.

If all development is done on its own branches, and all merges are
coordinated with the affected parties[1], then no "forks" should appear.
But, sometimes a mistake occurs and a "fork" is created. In theory, this is
most likely to occur when merging a branch into another, whether the target
branch is "trunk", a release branch, or another dev branch.

In the past, when I brought this up, somebody claimed that forks are
already obvious by looking at the timeline graph. On the one hand, I agree
that branch maintainers should be watching their branches extremely
carefully AND that committers should always check, repeatedly, that their
commits have not been accidentally orphaned. On the other hand, I know that
developers are people and people make mistakes, including overlooking other
people's mistakes.

[1] By "affect parties" I mean the devs responsible for the target branch.
_______________________________________________
fossil-users mailing list
fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org
http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users

Reply via email to