On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 4:04 PM, Michal Suchanek <hramr...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 11 September 2015 at 17:13, Noam Postavsky > <npost...@users.sourceforge.net> wrote: >> On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 3:57 AM, Michal Suchanek <hramr...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On 10 September 2015 at 19:23, Noam Postavsky >>> <npost...@users.sourceforge.net> wrote: >>>> For example see figure 3 of >>>> http://fossil-scm.org/xfer/doc/trunk/www/branching.wiki >>>> >>>> Both check-ins 3 and 4 are equidistant from the root. >>> >>> And each is on a differnt branch. >> >> This is a fork, not an intentional branch, so both sides are on the >> same branch. Figure 4 shows intentional branching. > > That does not really matter. Intentional or not it is a branch and has > to be merged before both commits appear on the same branch. Then they > both get unique number, too.
Okay, if you define branch that way then the problem is that both branches happen to have the same name. And yes, you can always assign unique (to a single repo) numbers, they just won't be as nicely ordered. I guess that's not so bad if forking is rare. _______________________________________________ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
