Re: [fossil-users] Workaround for the missing 'squash' command?

2016-05-14 Thread Marko Käning
Hi Ron, from what I read about merges in Fossil I had assumed, that they always merge in all changes changeset after changeset... On 12 May 2016, at 03:15 , Ron W wrote: > I think you are misunderstanding how a merge works in Fossil. The commands: > fossil update

Re: [fossil-users] Workaround for the missing 'squash' command?

2016-05-12 Thread Arnel
On 11 May 2016 09:19PM, Ron W wrote: > (I don't know what just "git merge" would do. I only know about > fast-forward because I specifically googled it to find out how it works.) Git's "merge" command does do "fast-forward" merging by default. If you want to create an actual merge commit, you

Re: [fossil-users] Workaround for the missing 'squash' command?

2016-05-12 Thread Joerg Sonnenberger
On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 09:43:34AM +0200, Joerg Sonnenberger wrote: > On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 12:24:20AM +0200, Marko Käning wrote: > > How to achieve a git'ish squash when merging a (private) branch into trunk? > > You can use update+commit to get the effect. checkout+commit I meant :) Joerg

Re: [fossil-users] Workaround for the missing 'squash' command?

2016-05-12 Thread Joerg Sonnenberger
On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 12:24:20AM +0200, Marko Käning wrote: > How to achieve a git'ish squash when merging a (private) branch into trunk? You can use update+commit to get the effect. Joerg ___ fossil-users mailing list

Re: [fossil-users] Workaround for the missing 'squash' command?

2016-05-11 Thread Ron W
On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 8:26 PM, Andy Bradford wrote: > > What happens when you merge a private branch into trunk? You get a single commit that represents all the changes from the branch. This is unlike "git merge --fast-forward". (I don't know what just "git merge"

Re: [fossil-users] Workaround for the missing 'squash' command?

2016-05-11 Thread Ron W
On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 6:24 PM, Marko Käning wrote: > How to achieve a git'ish squash when merging a (private) branch into trunk? > > Is this deliberately missing functionality following fossil's mission to > keep all history? > I think you are misunderstanding how a

Re: [fossil-users] Workaround for the missing 'squash' command?

2016-05-11 Thread Andy Bradford
Thus said =?windows-1252?Q?Marko_K=E4ning?= on Thu, 12 May 2016 00:24:20 +0200: > How to achieve a git'ish squash when merging a (private) branch into > trunk? What happens when you merge a private branch into trunk? Thanks, Andy -- TAI64 timestamp: 40005733cde2

Re: [fossil-users] Workaround for the missing 'squash' command?

2016-05-11 Thread Scott Robison
On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 4:24 PM, Marko Käning wrote: > How to achieve a git'ish squash when merging a (private) branch into trunk? > https://www.fossil-scm.org/xfer/doc/trunk/www/private.wiki seems to document this use case. You merge the private branch into a public

Re: [fossil-users] Workaround for the missing 'squash' command?

2016-05-11 Thread Warren Young
On May 11, 2016, at 4:24 PM, Marko Käning wrote: > > Is this deliberately missing functionality following fossil's mission to keep > all history? I suspect it’s more likely the case that fossil private branches are a subset of the functionality of regular branches,

[fossil-users] Workaround for the missing 'squash' command?

2016-05-11 Thread Marko Käning
How to achieve a git'ish squash when merging a (private) branch into trunk? Is this deliberately missing functionality following fossil's mission to keep all history? Well, especially in case of a _private_ branch it might make sense to have such a feature: assume one wants to work locally on