Thus said "j. van den hoff" on Fri, 17 Apr 2015 07:51:26 +0200:
> but if changing the terminology really is a seriously considered
> issue, than I cannot abstain from proposing "shoot" instead (which
> would open the theoretical possibility to indicate it as `SHOOT!' in
> the CLI timel
> Fossil simply defines it:
>
> Having more than one leaf in the check-in DAG is called a "fork."
>
>
After re-reading the wiki section that you pointed out I have a much better
understanding of how Fossil defines a fork. Thanks for pointing that out.
What I'm surprised at, after following both di
>
> github calling the project clone maintained on the server side a fork (I
> believe that's what it is, right?).
>
>
100% correct; a Github fork is a server-side clone.
A Github fork is also part of the project "fork network". This membership
allows you to propose changes from your copy of the
On Thu, 16 Apr 2015 22:58:55 +0200, Ron W wrote:
On Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at 4:30 PM, Scott Robison
wrote:
Some thoughts:
More seriously, the Wikipedia article on forking is probably worth a
read:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fork_(software_development)
I would claim that github is the odd
On Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at 2:58 PM, Ron W wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at 4:30 PM, Scott Robison
> wrote:
>>
>> Some thoughts:
>>
>> More seriously, the Wikipedia article on forking is probably worth a
>> read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fork_(software_development)
>>
>> I would claim that githu
On Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at 4:30 PM, Scott Robison
wrote:
>
> Some thoughts:
>
> More seriously, the Wikipedia article on forking is probably worth a read:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fork_(software_development)
>
> I would claim that github is the odd man out here, having appropriated a
> term tha
Thus said Ron W on Thu, 16 Apr 2015 15:27:38 -0400:
> So I don't know of an alternative term already in use to suggest. Not
> can I think of any other alternative term to suggest.
I don't know of an alternative either; perhaps a duplicate descendant
line.
Fossil simply defines it:
Having mo
On Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at 1:27 PM, Ron W wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at 2:41 PM, Andy Bradford
> wrote:
>
>> This document contains what Fossil considers a fork:
>>
>> https://www.fossil-scm.org/index.html/doc/trunk/www/branching.wiki
>
>
> Yes. And the _connotation_ of the term "fork" within th
On Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at 2:41 PM, Andy Bradford
wrote:
> This document contains what Fossil considers a fork:
>
> https://www.fossil-scm.org/index.html/doc/trunk/www/branching.wiki
Yes. And the _connotation_ of the term "fork" within the Fossil community
is unintended/accidental commit to a pare
Thus said Ron W on Thu, 16 Apr 2015 12:49:43 -0400:
> Unfortunately, I had no luck finding any better term for what Fossil
> calls a "fork". (My search-fu maybe off this morning.)
This document contains what Fossil considers a fork:
https://www.fossil-scm.org/index.html/doc/trunk/www/branching
On Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at 1:30 PM, James Moger wrote:
> Mercurial would call a Fossil fork a "head"[1].
>
> -J
>
> [1]: http://mercurial.selenic.com/wiki/MultipleHeads
>
That would be what Fossil calls a "Leaf". I suppose, one could argue that,
in Fossil, a "fork" is a special case of a "leaf", bu
Mercurial would call a Fossil fork a "head"[1].
-J
[1]: http://mercurial.selenic.com/wiki/MultipleHeads
On Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at 12:49 PM, Ron W wrote:
> As the flurry of discussion of "forks" starts to ebb, it occurred to me
> there is a conflict between how Fossil defines "fork" and how many
12 matches
Mail list logo
