On 09/25/17 10:39, Richard Hipp wrote:
On 9/25/17, Andy Goth <andrew.m.g...@gmail.com> wrote:
As far as I can tell, in the general case I described in my previous
email, assuming waiting was not an option, the best to do would have
been to explicitly specify the -baseline option when merging the child
branch and later when merging its parent branch. But this MUST be done
in combination with additional testing to confirm that the child branch
wasn't actually dependent on anything in its parent branch. And of
course the final merge also must be tested to confirm it didn't leave
anything out due to -baseline being forgotten or mistyped. Thoughts?
I was thinking of changing --baseline so that it records the merge
baseline using a Q card instead of a P card, as if the merge were a
cherrypick.
Not a bad idea at all. This avoids the second part of the problem quite
nicely. If I recall correctly, the Q card supports listing a range of
merged check-ins even though this feature is never actually used in
practice.
As for the user desire that a merge arrow be shown, I feel this would
best be addressed by showing cherrypick and backout merges. I wrote up
this wishlist item eons ago but never got around to working on it. Does
anyone have any new ideas about this?
How should such alternative merge arrows be rendered? Colors? Can
dashed lines be shown? Can the arrowhead be a symbol such as a tiny
circle or an X?
--
Andy Goth | <andrew.m.goth/at/gmail/dot/com>
_______________________________________________
fossil-users mailing list
fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org
http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
