Thus said Matt Welland on Thu, 16 Apr 2015 15:55:47 -0700: > I think merging a fork resolves then it and it is no longer a fork. > Only open forks represent potentially orphaned changes. Maybe we need > better terminology.
I think by definition it must be considered no longer a fork, however, it may be a leaf if it is the tip of that branch of the fork. Perhaps there is some confusion in the use of open/close with respect to a fork? ``Close'' does have a specific meaning in Fossil and there is certainly not an explicit ``close'' tag on the node that has been merged from a fork. Only if someone were to commit against this node, it would begin a new fork. But a fork that ends in a leaf that is ``closed'' is not considered a fork. And a fork that ends in being merged is also no longer a fork. Andy -- TAI64 timestamp: 4000000055305312 _______________________________________________ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
