Indeed, non-propagating tags are also "checkout-able" items. What am I missing about bookmarks that we can't already enjoy w/ tags, outside of new syntax ?
-bch On 6/4/14, Richard Hipp <d...@sqlite.org> wrote: > 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
