On Mon, Apr 25, 2011 at 4:23 PM, Zed A. Shaw <zeds...@zedshaw.com> wrote: > 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.
If I am understanding this correctly, after you pull from "Joe", you have an extra leaf because Joe's commit caused a fork. And you want the fork-leaf to be closed after you merge its changes into your development (FYI, fork-leafs can happen on branches as well as on the trunk). To me, this seems reasonable, but then I regard forks as unresolved conflicts, so other might not agree. Because any huristic strategy would likely be wrong at least 50% of the time, I would suggest that an option to the merge command be used to accomplish closing the leaf during the merge would be a reasonable enhancement to Fossil. _______________________________________________ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
