On Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 01:07:50PM +0200, Jan Nijtmans wrote: > 2015-04-17 12:02 GMT+02:00 Joerg Sonnenberger <jo...@britannica.bec.de>: > > 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> > ... > >> 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. > > Let's try that with a branch which is recently merged to trunk:
Right, but different. As discussed earlier, a fork means more than one leaf for the same branch. My point is that a merge of a fork will be passed over by update. In this case the branches are by definition the same. Joerg _______________________________________________ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
