On Sep 11, 2015, at 4:40 PM, Noam Postavsky <npost...@users.sourceforge.net> wrote: > > On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 5:28 PM, Warren Young <w...@etr-usa.com> wrote: >> On Sep 11, 2015, at 2:34 PM, Noam Postavsky <npost...@users.sourceforge.net> >> wrote: >>> >>> Okay, if you define branch that way… >> >> It isn’t a question of philosophical semantics. Stephan is telling you a >> fact about how Fossil behaves, not offering a fuzzy definition. > > According to http://fossil-scm.org/xfer/doc/trunk/www/branching.wiki > > A branch is a set of check-ins with the same value for their > "branch" property. > > Which is different from the definitions that Michael (whom I was > replying to) and Stephan were using.
The documentation is correct, but that’s why Fossil gets annoyed at you when you accidentally create a fork: “fossil up branch-name” becomes ambiguous, because there are two (or more!) tips to choose from. After healing the fork, there is only one. While the entire branch’s content may include a healed fork, it is usually only the tip that matters at any one time, when you are giving commands to Fossil involving that branch name. If you mean something farther up the branch than the tip, you are giving checkin IDs, not the branch name. >> Notice that the “hashes” change value in both identical cases: > > Actually it's not the project code, it's the date. Most interesting! Thank you for the enlightenment. _______________________________________________ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
