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
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
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
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
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"
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
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
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
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,
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
10 matches
Mail list logo