Hello, Did you mean for your reply to go only to me? You did not CC the Fossil list.
On Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at 9:07 PM, Steve Stefanovich <s...@stef.rs> wrote: > > *From: *Ron W > *Sent: *Friday, 17 April 2015 11:04 > *To: *Fossil SCM user's discussion > *Reply To: *Fossil SCM user's discussion > *Subject: *Re: [fossil-users] Two trunks? > > 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 > >
_______________________________________________ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
