On Thu, 28 May 2015 23:29:14 +0200, j. van den hoff
<veedeeh...@googlemail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 28 May 2015 23:14:30 +0200, Ron W <ronw.m...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 5:09 PM, j. van den hoff
<veedeeh...@googlemail.com>
wrote:
On Thu, 28 May 2015 22:47:32 +0200, Ron W <ronw.m...@gmail.com> wrote:
"graft" ?
used by mercurial for our `merge --cherrypick'. I believe it is
desirable
to avoid as far as possible names clashes where the functionality
behind
the command is completely different since it complicates both migration
between different systems as well as concurrent usage in my view. dito
for
`transplant'.
"splice" ?
wouldn't be a good "visulisation" of what is going on in my
understanding or rather, the emphasis here seems to be on "cut and
paste" rather than "paste" alone.
(FWIW, "graft" seems a weird verb to use in the context of merging. But
I
can see you point.)
depends on the POV, I'd say. if you sink of a single checkin as a sort
OMG... "think", not "sink". despite me being from germany.
of "sprout" on the branch it seems quite OK. actually, I find it
slightly more difficult to view a cherrypick of a single changeset as a
special case of merge (even when ignoring the fact that it is not at all
visualized as a merge in the timeline anyway). so "graft" would seem OK
with me for that action in `hg'. as it would be for "retagging" a branch
in `fossil' (actually my preferred choice...) were it not already used.
--
Using Opera's revolutionary email client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
_______________________________________________
fossil-users mailing list
fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org
http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
