On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 4:56 PM, Jan Nijtmans <jan.nijtm...@gmail.com>wrote:
> 2013/7/10 Stephan Beal <sgb...@googlemail.com>: > > To me closing at merge time sounds like the overall easier approach (but > i'm > > very possibly ignoring/missing details/complications which i'm hoping > > another list member will point out).... > Sometimes i'm so predictable... > that until a commit(with sync) is done. What if - in the mean time - > someone else does a commit in the to-be-closed branch? Later, when > we do the commit, we are trying to close a node which has successors..... > Should the commit fail then? > To quote Bill Murray in his role of Dr. Venkman: "Cats and dogs living together! Mass hysteria!" > And adding a sync after performing a merge-with-close doesn't seem > a good idea either: a merge is a local operation now, which cannot > fail (assuming the merged branch does exist) > i think i just went from "glass half full" to "glass half empty" on this topic :/. > A way out could be the following. In the "vmerge" table, the "id" > field is used for indicating what type of merge it is: > 0: MERGED_WITH....is printed that the branch couldn't be closed, but > it will not > influence the success/failure of the commit. > > How does that sound? > That well surpasses my understanding of how merging is tracked, so i'll just be quiet now ;). -- ----- stephan beal http://wanderinghorse.net/home/stephan/ http://gplus.to/sgbeal
_______________________________________________ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
