On Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at 09:04:12PM -0400, Ron W wrote: > 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?
You can still create commits from it, but update will move past it. That's why it is no longer a fork. Joerg _______________________________________________ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
