On Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at 8:25 PM, Andy Bradford <amb-fos...@bradfords.org> wrote:
> And a fork that ends in being merged is also no longer a fork. I disagree. While it might be the most common case, merging does not explicitly state any intent beyond the merge itself, even a full merge. After all, a merge doesn't automatically close a named branch. So why would a merge automatically make a "fork" not a fork? Closing it or making it the start of a new, named branch explicitly indicate an intent to remove "fork" status.
_______________________________________________ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
