I like this idea. I will test this branch Monday. +1
On Sun, Apr 26, 2015 at 10:16 AM, Jan Nijtmans <jan.nijtm...@gmail.com> wrote: > 2015-04-26 12:54 GMT+02:00 Richard Hipp <d...@sqlite.org>: > > 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?) > > Or, maybe just combine it with "fossil info" and use the more general > term "ambigeous branch" (of which "fork" is a special case) > <https://www.fossil-scm.org/index.html/info/4359bd8df2119799> > > Regards, > Jan Nijtmans > _______________________________________________ > 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
