2015-04-23 3:50 GMT+02:00 Andy Bradford <amb-fos...@bradfords.org>: > I've altered the change and now it will only check at the end of the > complete sync. Also, it only warns if it encounters a fork that has not > previously been seen (ignoring any additional checkins on a fork unless > they also are new forks). > > I think this will minimize fork warning fatigue that is an outstanding > concern.
Good work, I like it! +1 for merging it to trunk. > I don't think the problem is with ``fossil forks'' however, because > after running ``fossil rebuild'' on z.fossil, ``fossil forks'' correctly > reports that there are no forks. So it seems that for whatever reason, > running ``fossil pull'' the way we are for the test results in not all > nodes being properly designated in the tables. This behavior exists in > trunk as well. > > $ ./fossil forks -R z.fossil > (1) 2015-02-24 06:40:00 [8c3e6404b0] Let -x imply --emptydirs and > --dotfiles (user: jan.nijtmans tags: cleanX-no-clean-glob) > (2) 2013-06-21 09:27:19 [dfb47a2a2e] rebase (user: jan.nijtmans tags: > cleanX-no-clean-glob) > (3) 2013-06-19 07:14:13 [cbf9660369] rebase (user: jan.nijtmans tags: > cleanX-no-clean-glob) > (4) 2013-04-03 07:36:05 [6159a7f281] rebase (user: jan.nijtmans tags: > clean-with-ignore) > (5) 2013-04-02 09:31:26 [bdd9790484] merge trunk (user: jan.nijtmans tags: > clean-with-ignore) Yes, this must be a bug somewhere in the pull handling, which is caused by the "rebase" action I did (as experiment). Have a look at this commit: <http://fossil-scm.org/index.html/timeline?f=2e545d58> You will see that a new "clean-with-ignore" branch was created from trunk, the old content of "clean-with-ignore" being merged in. Even though effectively the branch didn't change, apparently the "pull" concluded that 2e545d58 is a leaf, while "fossil rebuild" correctly decides it isn't. Of course, I could explicitly add a "close" tag here as workaround, but for the sake of bug reproducibility I'll leave it like this ;-) Thanks! Good catch! Pleading guilty! However, as you correctly stated, this is unrelated to the recent fork handling improvements, so still good-to-go from me. Thanks! Jan Nijtmans _______________________________________________ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
