Thus said "Martin S. Weber" on Tue, 07 Feb 2017 17:04:00 +0100: > Well, worthless in its ultimate ratio in its current state (aka > playing devil's advocate). Deterministically picking the wrong thing > doesn't help. See the email with the fossil output. If I can only pick > the "other" dev branch by its hash, then the name of that "other" dev > branch has become worthless, as it will not resolve to the older one.
I don't think it's entirely worthless, anymore than having two people in the same room at the same time both having the same name. To address one or the other, some other indication must be made; for example, one might move closer to the one that is intended to be addressed, or use a nickname, or some other thing. If I have 2 branches by the same name, I move closer to the one I want using the UUID, then further commits at this point *will* automatically be applied to that particular instance of the same branch name, and not the most recent branch by that name. By that measure, it is not worthless because when I finally spin up Fossil UI to look at the history I will see the progress of the individual branches just as I expect. It's interesting to note that when Fossil was first publicly released, there was no concept of a ``branch'' but only forks. Notice that there are 2 long-term trunks and a number of temporary 3rd trunks: https://www.fossil-scm.org/index.html/timeline?unhide=on&n=25&y=all&t=&ms=exact&c=fff234b77cc774ca How did one resolve the difference between the development on different forks of trunk? UUID. Thanks, Andy -- TAI64 timestamp: 40000000589a3b24 _______________________________________________ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
