On Fri, 25 May 2012 15:28:02 -0400
Richard Hipp wrote:
> So perhaps we should go back to the original design?
As far as private branches are concerned, I'd like to be able to
selectively rm single private branch when using 'scrub'.
Otoh, Mercurial has nice concept of Phases
(http://mercurial.se
On 5/25/2012 12:28 PM, Richard Hipp wrote:
So, clearly, I just need to revisit the whole "private branch" concept
As originally implemented, private branches were just a marking in the
database. But then somebody (aku?)
While I don't remember that, it would certainly be in my line of thin
So, clearly, I just need to revisit the whole "private branch" concept
As originally implemented, private branches were just a marking in the
database. But then somebody (aku?) pointed out that if you export and
reimport the database, the private markings are lost, since database
entries are
On Fri, 25 May 2012 17:41:44 +
wrote:
> On Fri, 25 May 2012 13:34:54 -0400
> Richard Hipp wrote:
>
> > I don't think so, not other than checking each one out and
> > recommitting them one by one. To do otherwise would be changing the
> > history of the project, which Fossil does not allow
On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 12:26 PM, Nolan Darilek wrote:
> Shame, I actually kind of liked that individual commits were preserved.
> Squashing and such was part of why I left Git. History should be preserved,
> whether you are working alone in private or in the open.
History is preserved in your pr
On 05/25/2012 11:10 AM, org.fossil-scm.fossil-us...@io7m.com wrote:
That's one interpretation of private, yes. I took it to mean that the
branch wouldn't be synced, or visible, on any remotes. I don't think
that necessarily implies coalescing commits like that... If it's not
possible, I can liv
On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 01:53:23PM -0400, Richard Hipp wrote:
> On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 1:51 PM, Lluís Batlle i Rossell
> wrote:
> > Ah, I thought that branches could be made back public easily. I never used
> > privated branches still, so I have zero practise with them.
> >
> > As for the tag, Wh
On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 1:51 PM, Lluís Batlle i Rossell wrote:
> On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 01:49:06PM -0400, Richard Hipp wrote:
> > On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 1:42 PM, Lluís Batlle i Rossell <
> vi...@viric.name>wrote:
> >
> > > >
> > > > I don't think so, not other than checking each one out and
> re
On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 01:49:06PM -0400, Richard Hipp wrote:
> On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 1:42 PM, Lluís Batlle i Rossell
> wrote:
>
> > >
> > > I don't think so, not other than checking each one out and recommitting
> > > them one by one. To do otherwise would be changing the history of the
> > >
On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 1:42 PM, Lluís Batlle i Rossell wrote:
> >
> > I don't think so, not other than checking each one out and recommitting
> > them one by one. To do otherwise would be changing the history of the
> > project, which Fossil does not allow (by design).
>
> Couldn't the branch be
On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 01:34:54PM -0400, Richard Hipp wrote:
> On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 1:09 PM, wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 25 May 2012 16:10:44 +
> > wrote:
> >
> > > On Fri, 25 May 2012 11:53:35 -0400
> > > Richard Hipp wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 11:42 AM,
> > > > wrote:
> > >
On Fri, 25 May 2012 13:34:54 -0400
Richard Hipp wrote:
> I don't think so, not other than checking each one out and
> recommitting them one by one. To do otherwise would be changing the
> history of the project, which Fossil does not allow (by design).
That's fine.
Which commands should I use
On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 1:09 PM, wrote:
> On Fri, 25 May 2012 16:10:44 +
> wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 25 May 2012 11:53:35 -0400
> > Richard Hipp wrote:
> >
> > > On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 11:42 AM,
> > > wrote:
> > > > Is it possible to avoid squashing all private commits into one?
> > > >
> > >
>
On Fri, 25 May 2012 10:18:34 -0700
Matt Welland wrote:
> On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 9:10 AM,
> wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 25 May 2012 11:53:35 -0400
> > Richard Hipp wrote:
> >
> > > On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 11:42 AM,
> > > wrote:
> > > > Is it possible to avoid squashing all private commits into one?
>
On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 9:10 AM, wrote:
> On Fri, 25 May 2012 11:53:35 -0400
> Richard Hipp wrote:
>
> > On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 11:42 AM,
> > wrote:
> > > Is it possible to avoid squashing all private commits into one?
> > >
> >
> > The branch is private. If all the individual commits where pus
On Fri, 25 May 2012 16:10:44 +
wrote:
> On Fri, 25 May 2012 11:53:35 -0400
> Richard Hipp wrote:
>
> > On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 11:42 AM,
> > wrote:
> > > Is it possible to avoid squashing all private commits into one?
> > >
> >
> > The branch is private. If all the individual commits wher
On Fri, 25 May 2012 11:53:35 -0400
Richard Hipp wrote:
> On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 11:42 AM,
> wrote:
> > Is it possible to avoid squashing all private commits into one?
> >
>
> The branch is private. If all the individual commits where pushed
> out to the world, it wouldn't be private any more a
On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 11:42 AM, wrote:
> Hello.
>
> 1) I created a private branch, made several commits, and then merged the
> private branch with the current trunk. Rather than seeing the commits
> I made on the private branch in the timeline for the trunk, I only see
> the one large commit res
Hello.
1) I created a private branch, made several commits, and then merged the
private branch with the current trunk. Rather than seeing the commits
I made on the private branch in the timeline for the trunk, I only see
the one large commit resulting from accumulating all the smaller commits
into
19 matches
Mail list logo
