On Mon, Apr 25, 2011 at 04:08:26PM -0400, Richard Hipp wrote: > 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.
Again, I'm not talking about branches (those are leaves with names, they should not close). I'm talking about leaves, those are unnamed and mostly revision merge junk that has to be dealt with (or it was). > 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. Alright, so how were you using the old definition of leaves, then suddenly not seeing this change cause your leaf count to explode? Were you always doing something different with leaves I'm not? Ok so it was a recent change that caused my output to suddenly explode, now for the problem: > The current definition of "leaf" is a node that has no primary (non-merge) > children in the same branch. Definitions are pointless. I could define and define all day long and nobody would be able to *use* them. Translate the above statement into how I would use it to do this: 1. Joe blow commits and that causes a leaf. 2. I pull from joe blow and merge. 3. .... 4. There are only named leaves being shown as branches. Then I won't care what kind of graph table algorithmic definition you come up with, so long as the above sequences of commands don't change without warning. Additionally, none of the documentation on closing a branch is right. I've had to go in and use the UI to add the "closed" tag and they're still there. I've done everything and the only thing that's worked is: fossil tag add --raw closed aaf334335 That's a usability nightmare. I can't tell people that they have to go through this complex 4 step process involving an esoteric command "tag add" to close (not intuitive) just to do a merge when every other RCS does it in one or two. > 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". Stop changing it? Or, better yet, change it but quit leaking those changes out to the user interface. Having my repo suddenly explode with leaves because, 1 year ago leaves worked one way, but now 1 month ago they work totally different, just won't work. If you have to change it like this then consider making big announcements on the list that it's changing and how to deal with the change, and include it in the rebuild so people migrate cleanly. -- Zed A. Shaw http://zedshaw.com/ _______________________________________________ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
