This is what happened as I understand it:
The codename "fossil 2.0" has been used for a few years whenever a change
that would potentially break backwards compatibility was suggested. Such a
version, if ever released, would require more planning, more testing and
more notice to users then a "regul
On Mar 6, 2017, at 12:21 AM, Tino Lange wrote:
>
> Now that Fossil 2.0 is out I wonder if line 42 here:
> https://www.fossil-scm.org/index.html/artifact?ln=on&name=f23144d54a286503
> should be turned to 1 to change the mv-and-rm behaviour?
While I would like to see that behavior become the defau
Hi!
Now that Fossil 2.0 is out I wonder if line 42 here:
https://www.fossil-scm.org/index.html/artifact?ln=on&name=f23144d54a286503
should be turned to 1 to change the mv-and-rm behaviour?
Cheers,
Tino
___
fossil-dev mailing list
fossil-dev@mailinglis
