Re: [fossil-users] Two trunks?

On 4/25/15, Ron W wrote: > As for the usefulness of a /forks page (in addition to a fossil forks > command), Project Managers will find it a lot more useful than the CLI > command, just as they find the /timeline page a lot more useful than the > command. > > Also, as a lead dev, myself, there ar

Re: [fossil-users] Testing. Was: Two trunks?

On 4/26/15, j. van den hoff wrote: > some other > wording would be better I believe. actually the previous description > "multiple leaves on trunk (or branch XXX)" seems much clearer to me. > The alternative-fork-warning branch uses this wording, and it also shows a list of all the open leaves o

Re: [fossil-users] Testing. Was: Two trunks?

On Apr 26, 2015 1:00 PM, "j. van den hoff" wrote: > > On Sun, 26 Apr 2015 19:51:44 +0200, Matt Welland wrote: > >> I like this idea. I will test this branch Monday. >> >> +1 >> >> On Sun, Apr 26, 2015 at 10:16 AM, Jan Nijtmans >> wrote: >> >>> 2015-04-26 12:54 GMT+02:00 Richard Hipp : >>> > Yes,

Re: [fossil-users] Testing. Was: Two trunks?

On Sun, 26 Apr 2015 19:51:44 +0200, Matt Welland wrote: I like this idea. I will test this branch Monday. +1 On Sun, Apr 26, 2015 at 10:16 AM, Jan Nijtmans wrote: 2015-04-26 12:54 GMT+02:00 Richard Hipp : > Yes, but it is not a fork. And so we shouldn't call it "fossil forks" > since th

Re: [fossil-users] Testing. Was: Two trunks?

I like this idea. I will test this branch Monday. +1 On Sun, Apr 26, 2015 at 10:16 AM, Jan Nijtmans wrote: > 2015-04-26 12:54 GMT+02:00 Richard Hipp : > > Yes, but it is not a fork. And so we shouldn't call it "fossil forks" > > since that would prevent us from creating a "fossil forks" comman

Re: [fossil-users] Testing. Was: Two trunks?

2015-04-26 12:54 GMT+02:00 Richard Hipp : > Yes, but it is not a fork. And so we shouldn't call it "fossil forks" > since that would prevent us from creating a "fossil forks" command > that actually lists real forks. > > Perhaps the command should be "fossil warnings" or "fossil concerns" > and it

Re: [fossil-users] Two trunks?

On Sat, Apr 25, 2015 at 01:33:09PM -0700, Matt Welland wrote: > If a fork happens, merge it, change it into a branch or close it. There is > no need for a forks page. All that is needed is to keep developers > informed so the fork doesn't lie undetected and cause confusion. I fully agree and I d

Re: [fossil-users] Testing. Was: Two trunks?

On 4/26/15, Jan Nijtmans wrote: > Although not matching the definition of fork, it's a potential problem... Yes, but it is not a fork. And so we shouldn't call it "fossil forks" since that would prevent us from creating a "fossil forks" command that actually lists real forks. Perhaps the comman

Re: [fossil-users] Testing. Was: Two trunks?

2015-04-25 22:54 GMT+02:00 Richard Hipp : > On 4/25/15, Jan Nijtmans wrote: >> 2015-04-25 18:38 GMT+02:00 Andy Bradford: >> So, let's start testing: >> > > The "fossil forks" command applied to SQLite reports these four > check-ins