On 4/2/2016 3:40 AM, Svyatoslav Mishyn wrote:
(Fri, 01 Apr 17:50) Ross Berteig:
Even better, Joe has already done that to trunk.
But why that commit [b6b50b12] is marked
as *FORK* in timeline.rss;
and as *BRANCH* in `fossil timeline`;
while here https://www.fossil-scm.org/index.html/info/b6b50b1244796110
looks like usual commit..
Oooh, that's weird. Narrowing to just checkins on trunk, we can see
several more cases that have done the same thing. Someone more familiar
with the RSS generator should take a look, it doesn't look right.
https://www.fossil-scm.org/index.html/timeline.rss?y=ci&tag=trunk
At a quick glance at the current batch, it looks like it is calling any
node a *FORK* if there is more than one descendent. But in all the cases
covered right now, these are nodes that have branches and are not
properly a *FORK* as we normally use the term in fossil. (And after
quickly rereading
https://www.fossil-scm.org/index.html/doc/trunk/www/branching.wiki I
think the documentation does agree with that statement.)
It would be better to label it as "Branch Point" or possibly just
"Branch" for brevity in the RSS feed. Unless it really *is* a fork, of
course.
--
Ross Berteig r...@cheshireeng.com
Cheshire Engineering Corp. http://www.CheshireEng.com/
+1 626 303 1602
_______________________________________________
fossil-users mailing list
fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org
http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
