On 5/25/2012 12:28 PM, Richard Hipp wrote:
So, clearly, I just need to revisit the whole "private branch" concept....
As originally implemented, private branches were just a marking in the
database. But then somebody (aku?)
While I don't remember that, it would certainly be in my line of thinking on
seeing such a design.
> pointed out that if you export and reimport
the database, the private markings are lost, since database entries are not
preserved on import/export. So then I started adding the "private" tag to
private branches. So now I find that these tags are hard to get rid of.
So perhaps we should go back to the original design?
--
Andreas Kupries
Senior Tcl Developer
Code to Cloud: Smarter, Safer, Faster™
P: 778.786.1122
F: 778.786.1133
andre...@activestate.com
http://www.activestate.com
Learn about Stackato for Private PaaS: http://www.activestate.com/stackato
http://www.eurotcl.tcl3d.org/ - EuroTcl 2012, July 7-8 , Munich, Germany.
http://www.tcl.tk/community/tcl2012/ - Tcl'2012, Nov 12-16, Chicago, IL, USA.
_______________________________________________
fossil-users mailing list
fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org
http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
