2015-04-25 22:54 GMT+02:00 Richard Hipp d...@sqlite.org:
On 4/25/15, Jan Nijtmans jan.nijtm...@gmail.com wrote:
2015-04-25 18:38 GMT+02:00 Andy Bradford:
So, let's start testing:
https://www.fossil-scm.org/index.html/info/560483f50436c9f7
The fossil forks command applied to SQLite
On Sat, Apr 25, 2015 at 01:33:09PM -0700, Matt Welland wrote:
If a fork happens, merge it, change it into a branch or close it. There is
no need for a forks page. All that is needed is to keep developers
informed so the fork doesn't lie undetected and cause confusion.
I fully agree and I
On 4/26/15, Jan Nijtmans jan.nijtm...@gmail.com wrote:
Although not matching the definition of fork, it's a potential problem...
Yes, but it is not a fork. And so we shouldn't call it fossil forks
since that would prevent us from creating a fossil forks command
that actually lists real forks.
On 4/26/15, j. van den hoff veedeeh...@googlemail.com wrote:
some other
wording would be better I believe. actually the previous description
multiple leaves on trunk (or branch XXX) seems much clearer to me.
The alternative-fork-warning branch uses this wording, and it also
shows a list of
On 4/25/15, Ron W ronw.m...@gmail.com wrote:
As for the usefulness of a /forks page (in addition to a fossil forks
command), Project Managers will find it a lot more useful than the CLI
command, just as they find the /timeline page a lot more useful than the
command.
Also, as a lead dev,
2015-04-26 12:54 GMT+02:00 Richard Hipp d...@sqlite.org:
Yes, but it is not a fork. And so we shouldn't call it fossil forks
since that would prevent us from creating a fossil forks command
that actually lists real forks.
Perhaps the command should be fossil warnings or fossil concerns
and
On Apr 26, 2015 1:00 PM, j. van den hoff veedeeh...@googlemail.com
wrote:
On Sun, 26 Apr 2015 19:51:44 +0200, Matt Welland mattrwell...@gmail.com
wrote:
I like this idea. I will test this branch Monday.
+1
On Sun, Apr 26, 2015 at 10:16 AM, Jan Nijtmans jan.nijtm...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Sun, 26 Apr 2015 19:51:44 +0200, Matt Welland mattrwell...@gmail.com
wrote:
I like this idea. I will test this branch Monday.
+1
On Sun, Apr 26, 2015 at 10:16 AM, Jan Nijtmans jan.nijtm...@gmail.com
wrote:
2015-04-26 12:54 GMT+02:00 Richard Hipp d...@sqlite.org:
Yes, but it is not a
I like this idea. I will test this branch Monday.
+1
On Sun, Apr 26, 2015 at 10:16 AM, Jan Nijtmans jan.nijtm...@gmail.com
wrote:
2015-04-26 12:54 GMT+02:00 Richard Hipp d...@sqlite.org:
Yes, but it is not a fork. And so we shouldn't call it fossil forks
since that would prevent us from
9 matches
Mail list logo
