On Fri, Apr 22, 2016 at 11:45 PM, Arnel <r...@openmailbox.org> wrote: > > > Doesn't working on a branch marked private and merging it later (upon > approval) > essentially provide the benefits of "squashing" the commits? The only > difference > would be the branch commits themselves will not be visible on the upstream > repository upon merging. Only the merge commit will be seen. > > Admittedly, changes made that way will be harder to review, though. > Probably > better to not use private branches for that situation.
Another potential problem with private branches: Because they don't get pushed, you loose the safety net of having them replicated in another (preferably remote) repo. Remember: Version control is not - in and of itself - a backup. You need to properly backup your repo. You should also properly backup workspace (and PC). This is why my team opted to keep autosync on - fully on. Easier to cleanup accidental commits to the wrong branch - trunk or other - than to reconstruct lost work.
_______________________________________________ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
