On 4/26/15, Jan Nijtmans <jan.nijtm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Although not matching the definition of fork, it's a potential problem...
Yes, but it is not a fork. And so we shouldn't call it "fossil forks"
since that would prevent us from creating a "fossil forks" command
that actually lists real forks.
Perhaps the command should be "fossil warnings" or "fossil concerns"
and it should report all topological features that are worrisome to
some users. (Are there any other graph topology features besides
multiple leaves on the same branch that people are concerned about?)
The "fossil forks" command (if it exists) ought to show bifurcations
in the graph - nodes that have two or more children with the same
branch tag. I see three possible variants:
fossil forks --unresolved
fossil forks --resolved
fossil forks --all
Perhaps the first of these should be the default, since that seems to
be what people consider to be the most harmful.
--
D. Richard Hipp
d...@sqlite.org
_______________________________________________
fossil-users mailing list
fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org
http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
