Thing is (well, two things): a) I would expect a fork to still have a common ancestor. I have certainly run across the fork thing due to out of synced repos (and as I recall, I get a warning beforehand). And b) in this case I had started from a freshly pulled-down clone, so I never had the opportunity to be out-of-sync.
Ultimately, it's not a crisis for me. This repo is a 'utility' repo that doesn't have code or precious stuff in it. I mention it partially as a curiousity, and in case it is symptomatic of a bug, since I didn't think it was possible to have two trees with no common ancestor (at least, the way it is is depicted in the gui), and certainly not through the way I got here. As fate would have it, I'm going to destroy this repo and rebuild it anyway, but I might keep a copy on-hand for later scrutiny in my copious free time.... > -----Original Message----- > From: fossil-users-boun...@lists.fossil-scm.org > [mailto:fossil-users-boun...@lists.fossil-scm.org] On Behalf > Of B Harder > Sent: Thursday, October 02, 2014 12:29 PM > To: Fossil SCM user's discussion > Subject: Re: [fossil-users] I have two trunks? > > > Hi Dave. > > This is a "fork" (unintentional branch). It would happen (for example) > if two different clones of a repository are updated independently of > each other, and then sync'd. You can merge the "errant trunk" back to > the "good trunk" without ill effect (minding you might have to do > conflict resolution). If you think of the case of two different clones > being updated as I described above, then ultimately merged together > (creating a fork in a branch), you'll see the DAG is maintained. The > labels for the branchname are maintained too, and the effect you see > (two Trunk branches) is consistent w/ the model. Re-merge them and > keep on developing ! > > > -bch > > > On 10/2/14, dave <d...@ziggurat29.com> wrote: > > Hi list; > > > > Today I opened one of my repos, and expected to see some > stuff that is in > > 'trunk'. However, it was empty as the day it was born. I > could see all my > > branches via 'branches', and could update to them, but when > I would update > > to 'trunk' it would always be empty. Odd, I thought, I'm > quite sure I put > > stuff there, but 'oh, well', I thought, and I checked some > stuff into it > > that I had expected to already be there, and then also made > a branch for > > some other things, and checked them in, too. > > > > When I look at the timeline via fossil ui, I very clearly > see I now have > > two > > trunks, the original one, and this new one. I didn't even > think this was > > possible, because I believed that fossil repos only have > one unified DAG. > > Am I insane (er, 'am I in error', I mean to ask), or is > this normal, and > > due > > to something odd that I did (though I can't imagine what it > would be). > > > > This is not a secret repo; you can look here if curious: > > fossil clone > http://chiselapp.com/user/ziggurat29/repository/z29-3rdParty > > 3rdParty.fossil > > > > Thanks! > > > > -dave > > > _______________________________________________ > fossil-users mailing list > fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org > http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foss il-users _______________________________________________ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
