On Mon, Apr 25, 2011 at 3:55 PM, Joshua Paine <jos...@letterblock.com>wrote:
> So this sounds like maybe has more to do with the changing definition of > leaf? > > FWIW, I would *not* expect that merging a branch would close it. In > fact, I routinely assume that it does not, as I merge back and forth > sometimes between trunk and feature branches to apply bugfixes or > freestanding subfeatures from one to the other. > This goes back to my comments of the other day - that the definition of "leaf" is subtle, and that I have had to change the definition of "leaf" a few times over the history of Fossil to deal with issues that have arisen. Zed's problem seems to originate in the most recent "leaf" definition change. The current definition of "leaf" is a node that has no primary (non-merge) children in the same branch. I can change that definition so that a "leaf" is a node with no children of any kind in the same branch. This revision seems to be what Zed wants. But Joshua seems to think that the current definition is better. Suggestions on how to please everybody? No - a configuration option is not the right answer; there needs to be a single, unified definition of "leaf". > > -- > Joshua Paine > LetterBlock: Web Applications Built With Joy > http://letterblock.com/ > 301-576-1920 > _______________________________________________ > fossil-users mailing list > fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org > http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users > -- D. Richard Hipp d...@sqlite.org
_______________________________________________ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
