On Wed, Jun 4, 2014 at 12:03 PM, Nico Williams <n...@cryptonector.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 4, 2014 at 9:07 AM, Stephan Beal <sgb...@googlemail.com> > wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 4, 2014 at 12:02 AM, Nico Williams <n...@cryptonector.com> > > wrote: > >> Mercurial too had "heavy-duty" branches only, then they added > >> "bookmarks" that are very similar to git branches. Since a "bookmark" > >> is just a symbolic name for a commit... this is just a new table at > >> best, with two columns. > > > > Bookmarks. That's a nice idea, actually. Added to my TODO list. > > It's interesting that I just sold you on the git branching model, by > using the Mercurial analog. > The Fossil and Git branching model are already the same, with the one exception that branch names in Fossil are global (they sync to other repositories) whereas in Git they are local to a single repository. Fossil also has something analogous to "bookmarks" - namely propagating tags. You set a tag on a particular check-in, and that tag is automatically added to all direct descendents. When you can check-out that "tag" and Fossil selects the most recent, which is the same thing as a bookmark that automatically moves to the head of the branch. -- 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
