On Fri, 11 Mar 2011 19:40:03 +1000
Steve Dalton <st...@refactor.com.au> wrote:
> Should things like "lock" and "rebase" be "no" as apposed to
> "Unknown"? I understand rebase is something that can't be done in
> Fossil due to "fossilizing" the history right? I'm also certain fossil
> doesn't support locking, right? :)
"Lock" is pretty much impossible in a DVCS. If you check the advanced
commands table, it's "no" for pretty much all of them (including
fossil), even though it's "unknown" for all of them in the "basic
commands" table. I guess since fossil allows multiple checkouts from
one repo, it could lock files *in that repo*.
As you say, "rebase" cuts against what I understand to be fossils
philosophy.
And the "rollback" question is sorta odd. You can delete things from
fossil, by shunning them then rebuilding (?) the repo. However,
there's still a record of it in the shun list, and possibly
elsewhere. I'd say that "no" here is at least as correct as mercurials
"yes" when mercurial only allows you to remove the *last* change to
the repo.
While questioning things - I notice that "interactive commit" is
listed as "yes" in the "advanced features" table. The comment says
that means you can cherry-pick changes, meaning you can commit some
changes to a file without committing all of them. If that's right, I
couldn't find it.
<mike
--
Mike Meyer <m...@mired.org> http://www.mired.org/consulting.html
Independent Software developer/SCM consultant, email for more information.
O< ascii ribbon campaign - stop html mail - www.asciiribbon.org
_______________________________________________
fossil-users mailing list
fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org
http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
