On Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at 5:37 AM, Jan Nijtmans <jan.nijtm...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> 2015-04-16 13:44 GMT+02:00 Matt Welland <mattrwell...@gmail.com>:
> > I'm confused by this. If the fork was merged to trunk it is no longer a
> fork
> > and should not be detected. Can you elaborate?
>
> In fossil it is possible to merge a branch to trunk, but leave the
> branch open. It could have been a partial merge, fossil has no way
> to know that, until the user explicitly closes the branch. Therefore,
> such a branch needs to be included in the fork-detection.
>

Since these are effectively forks that have been resolved by merging is it
possible to detect them as such and not report them?


>
> Down to two:
> $ fossil forks --bybranch
> *** dg-misc ***
>    (1) 2013-12-19 22:04:43 [22d9cff0c32637] Merge from trunk. (user:
> dg tags: dg-misc)
>    (2) 2013-10-31 14:41:22 [bbebf7090c6437] Merge from trunk. (user:
> dg tags: dg-misc)
> *** side-by-side-edit ***
>    (3) 2012-04-30 09:33:53 [396eceb9e41290] When sided by side make
> the text area small so it will always fit in the column.
>        After page loaded enlarge the text area with Javascript. But
> leave a little room (40px) as a margin between the two
>        columns. This insurers that side by side always succeeds.
> (user: renez tags: side-by-side-edit)
>    (4) 2012-04-29 17:08:44 [82332148a2aa3c] Merge in recent trunk
> changes so that the branches can be more easily compared.
>        (user: drh tags: side-by-side-edit)
>
> Analysing those last two, it's not difficult to see what happened:
>     <https://fossil-scm.org/index.html/timeline?n=100&r=dg-misc>
>     <https://fossil-scm.org/index.html/timeline?n=100&r=side-by-side-edit>
>
> The oldest commits were nothing more than merging trunk changes into
> the branch. But later the user forgot about that (without seeing the
> warning). So it's safe to assume that the older of the two commits
> will not be continued upon, and can be closed. Done now.
>
> The fossil self-hosting repository is fork-free now (FWIW) !
> Anyway, we still can test the fork-detection on SQLite ;-)
> $ fossil forks --bybranch
> *** branch-3.7.16 ***
>    (1) 2013-04-12 11:52:43 [cbea02d93865ce] Version 3.7.16.2 (user:
> drh tags: release, version-3.7.16.2, branch-3.7.16)
>    (2) 2013-04-10 03:22:59 [bf6ca21b36ace0] Backport the multi-process
> tester to the last released version. (user: mistachkin
>        tags: branch-3.7.16)
> *** mistake ***
>    (3) 2015-03-30 19:56:18 [763d2bc74b560c] Optimize CREATE INDEX,
> REINDEX and VACUUM statements by taking better advantage of
>        the fact that index keys are being inserted into b-trees in
> sorted order. (user: dan tags: mistake)
>    (4) 2014-05-28 09:56:34 [7d445e593a9966] Moved to "mistake" because
> this commit contains a typo causing a test to fail.
>        Was: Add an extra test to further verify that the FTS
> notindexed option is working properly. (user: dan tags: mistake)
>
>
> Hope this helps,
>         Jan Nijtmans
> _______________________________________________
> fossil-users mailing list
> fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org
> http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
>
_______________________________________________
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