Thus said "Martin S. Weber" on Tue, 07 Feb 2017 11:07:55 +0100: > thanks for proving my point.
You're welcome. I never said branch names don't identify a branch, nor that they are meaningless. I said that when you use ``fossil branch new'' that it doesn't imply that the following commit will be on that branch. And given the following: > This could be mitigated, by keeping the same design, with the CLI > actually outputting an identity of the branch that can be used to > select that specific branch. If the name is but a tag, do output the > actual identity. Problem then becomes one of the user-unfriendliness > of entering hashes for symbolic names (why have symbolic names if they > are worthless?). Does not Fossil allow the use of names for most operations and will attempt to resolve them in a deterministic fashion? Who claimed that they are worthless? If I run ``fossil branch new'' it creates a new branch according to the BASIS that I gave it. It also outputs the artifact ID of the commit that this tag was assigned to (remember, a branch name is merely a tag on a commit, so one cannot have a tag without a commit). I agree, however, that ``fossil branch new'' could provide more information as to the state of the repository, and so: http://www.fossil-scm.org/index.html/info/cbde195a118e231f Which produces output like: $ ./fossil branch new test 3f9a077a8d85d6bf5690f93ea561d6ee10c46024 New branch: c63492a121dd8af63e05924dfa4563a79fbae367 uuid: 3f9a077a8d85d6bf5690f93ea561d6ee10c46024 2017-02-07 14:57:22 UTC child: c63492a121dd8af63e05924dfa4563a79fbae367 2017-02-07 14:57:56 UTC tags: trunk comment: initial empty check-in (user: amb) Maybe this isn't even sufficient, but I do believe it's an improvement. Andy -- TAI64 timestamp: 400000005899e0dc _______________________________________________ fossil-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
