On 11 September 2015 at 17:13, Noam Postavsky <npost...@users.sourceforge.net> wrote: > On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 3:57 AM, Michal Suchanek <hramr...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On 10 September 2015 at 19:23, Noam Postavsky >> <npost...@users.sourceforge.net> wrote: >>> For example see figure 3 of >>> http://fossil-scm.org/xfer/doc/trunk/www/branching.wiki >>> >>> Both check-ins 3 and 4 are equidistant from the root. >> >> And each is on a differnt branch. > > This is a fork, not an intentional branch, so both sides are on the > same branch. Figure 4 shows intentional branching.
That does not really matter. Intentional or not it is a branch and has to be merged before both commits appear on the same branch. Then they both get unique number, too. Thanks Michal _______________________________________________ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
