On 11/08/2011, at 8:02 AM, Stephan Beal wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 1:35 AM, Will Duquette wrote:
> ...development context. If I create the new branch explicitly, then I've
> changed my development context in my head AND in my work area.
>
>
> Thank you for so elegantly describing what
On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 1:35 AM, Will Duquette wrote:
> ...development context. If I create the new branch explicitly, then I've
> changed my development context in my head AND in my work area.
>
Thank you for so elegantly describing what i was unable to express nearly as
well :).
--
- s
On Aug 9, 2011, at 7:58 AM, Richard Hipp wrote:
> Change the subject: Please help me to understand why people want to create a
> new branch before adding changes to that branch, rather than just waiting
> until they check-in their edits? I'm not being sarcastic or critical here.
> A lot of p
On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 1:39 PM, Ron Wilson wrote:
>
> >
> >> $ fossil branch next espresso-feature
> >
> > That's an interesting feature request. I'll take it under
> consideration...
>
> What about allowing a "null commit" on branch? That way,
>
> fossil commit -branch new-branch
>
> could
On Tue, Aug 9, 2011 at 2:47 PM, Richard Hipp wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 9, 2011 at 2:33 PM, Gé Weijers wrote:
>> If you create the branch first you cannot forget later and commit to the
>> wrong branch.>
> I beg to differ! Just this past Friday, I did three separate commits to
> SQLite that went into
On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 4:50 AM, wrote:
> It is more like a logical process. You want to work on something, create a
> branch, work on it and commit. If you have to create a branch when
> committing, you will have to remember if this is first commit in that branch
> or subsequent. You commandline
creates the branch
- not good for scripting or for 3rd party GUIs - IDEs?
- altu
> - Original Message -
> From: Richard Hipp
> Sent: 08/09/11 08:28 PM
> To: fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org
> Subject: [fossil-users] Why do people create branches as a separate step?
&
On Tue, 9 Aug 2011, Richard Hipp wrote:
On Tue, Aug 9, 2011 at 2:33 PM, Gé Weijers wrote:
If you create the branch first you cannot forget later and commit to the wrong
branch.
I beg to differ! Just this past Friday, I did three separate commits to SQLite
that went into the wrong
branc
On Tue, 9 Aug 2011, Lluís Batlle i Rossell wrote:
If you could just tell fossil that you intend to commit to a new
branch from the current workspace/checkout creating that extra
commit object could be avoided without risking a commit to the wrong
branch.
You can *later* change the branch, af
On Tue, Aug 9, 2011 at 2:33 PM, Gé Weijers wrote:
>
> If you create the branch first you cannot forget later and commit to the
> wrong branch.
I beg to differ! Just this past Friday, I did three separate commits to
SQLite that went into the wrong branch even though the correct branch
already
On Tue, Aug 09, 2011 at 11:33:19AM -0700, Gé Weijers wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, 9 Aug 2011, Richard Hipp wrote:
>
> >Change the subject: Please help me to understand why people want to create
> >a new branch before adding
> >changes to that branch, rather than just waiting until they check-in their
On Tue, 9 Aug 2011, Richard Hipp wrote:
Change the subject: Please help me to understand why people want to create a
new branch before adding
changes to that branch, rather than just waiting until they check-in their
edits? I'm not being
sarcastic or critical here. A lot of people do this
scm.org] On Behalf Of Joshua Paine
> > > Sent: Tuesday, August 09, 2011 10:10 AM
> > > To: fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org
> > > Subject: Re: [fossil-users] Why do people create branches as a separate
> > step? Was: Unable to sign manifest
> > >
> >
gt; Sent: Tuesday, August 09, 2011 10:10 AM
> > To: fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org
> > Subject: Re: [fossil-users] Why do people create branches as a separate
> step? Was: Unable to sign manifest
> >
> > On 8/9/2011 10:58 AM, Richard Hipp wrote:
> > > Change the subject:
sage-
> From: fossil-users-boun...@lists.fossil-scm.org
> [mailto:fossil-users-boun...@lists.fossil-scm.org] On Behalf Of Joshua Paine
> Sent: Tuesday, August 09, 2011 10:10 AM
> To: fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org
> Subject: Re: [fossil-users] Why do people create branches as
: fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org
Subject: Re: [fossil-users] Why do people create branches as a separate step?
Was: Unable to sign manifest
On 8/9/2011 10:58 AM, Richard Hipp wrote:
> Change the subject: Please help me to understand why people want to
> create a new branch before adding chan
@lists.fossil-scm.org
Subject: [fossil-users] Why do people create branches as a separate step? Was:
Unable to sign manifest
On Tue, Aug 9, 2011 at 10:28 AM,
tpero...@compumation.com<mailto:tpero...@compumation.com>
mailto:tpero...@compumation.com>> wrote:
fossil branch new Te
On Tue, Aug 9, 2011 at 8:35 AM, Konstantin Khomoutov <
flatw...@users.sourceforge.net> wrote:
> On Tue, 9 Aug 2011 08:19:46 -0700
> Matt Welland wrote:
>
> > I often am planning a change or thinking ahead and will create the
> > branch to record my intentions before I've started coding. I do like
On 9 Aug 2011, at 18:15, Matt Welland wrote:
>
> **soapbox mode - feel free to stop reading :) **
>
> The list of things that chip away at making a case for using fossil in
> serious work (lots of geographically distributed developers with minimal
> communication channels and a complex project
On Tue, Aug 9, 2011 at 9:25 AM, Ron Wilson wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 9, 2011 at 10:58 AM, Richard Hipp wrote:
> > The way I've *always* done things is:
> >
> > (1) ... edit files
> > (2) fossil commit -branch new-branch
> >
> > But I see many people want to do a 4-step process:
> >
> >
On Tue, Aug 9, 2011 at 10:58 AM, Richard Hipp wrote:
> The way I've *always* done things is:
>
> (1) ... edit files
> (2) fossil commit -branch new-branch
>
> But I see many people want to do a 4-step process:
>
> (1) fossil branch new new-branch
> (2) fossil update new-branch
I agree with the others, I usually start a branch as a part of the process
of working on some new feature. It just feels more organized than
remembering to decide what branch to use when I finally commit, or changing
the branch after the fact.
2011/8/9 Lluís Batlle i Rossell
> On Tue, Aug 09, 2
On Tue, Aug 09, 2011 at 10:58:02AM -0400, Richard Hipp wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 9, 2011 at 10:28 AM, tpero...@compumation.com <
> tpero...@compumation.com> wrote:
> (1) fossil branch new new-branch
I forgot to add that I don't like this approach *also* because it does not let
me type teh message
On Tue, Aug 09, 2011 at 11:27:09AM -0400, Joshua Paine wrote:
> On 8/9/2011 11:19 AM, Matt Welland wrote:
> > Note: It is annoying to me that "fossil branch new foo" won't simply
> > branch from the current node.
>
> +1
>
> > By the way, how does "update" differ from "co" in your step 2 below?
>
On Tue, Aug 09, 2011 at 11:06:23PM +0800, Ambrose Bonnaire-Sergeant wrote:
> Personally, this is a habit I bring from git, mainly because I'm not aware
> of any other way to doing things.
>
> I was not aware of fossil commit -branch new-branch, seems like a much
> better alternative.
>
> Half the
On Tue, 9 Aug 2011 08:19:46 -0700
Matt Welland wrote:
> I often am planning a change or thinking ahead and will create the
> branch to record my intentions before I've started coding. I do like
> the ability to checkin changes to a branch but would generally not
> intentionally use it out of the
On Tue, Aug 09, 2011 at 10:58:02AM -0400, Richard Hipp wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 9, 2011 at 10:28 AM, tpero...@compumation.com <
> tpero...@compumation.com> wrote:
> Change the subject: Please help me to understand why people want to create
> a new branch before adding changes to that branch, rather th
On Tue, 9 Aug 2011 17:04:04 +0200
Gour-Gadadhara Dasa wrote:
> > Please help me to understand why people want to
> > create a new branch before adding changes to that branch, rather
> > than just waiting until they check-in their edits? I'm not being
> > sarcastic or critical here. A lot of peop
On Tue, Aug 9, 2011 at 4:58 PM, Richard Hipp wrote:
> That seems like so much more trouble. What am I missing? Is it that
> people are unaware that they can make edits that are destined to go into a
> branch before that branch actually
>
In my experience it's that when i know i've reached a br
On 8/9/2011 11:19 AM, Matt Welland wrote:
> Note: It is annoying to me that "fossil branch new foo" won't simply
> branch from the current node.
+1
> By the way, how does "update" differ from "co" in your step 2 below?
If you have no edited files, they have the same effect. But if you have
some
I often am planning a change or thinking ahead and will create the branch to
record my intentions before I've started coding. I do like the ability to
checkin changes to a branch but would generally not intentionally use it out
of the risk of forgetting that my changes are intended for a branch and
On 8/9/2011 11:04 AM, Gour-Gadadhara Dasa wrote:
> Maybe the way how other DVCS work?
> Which DVCS can create branch along with the commit?
I was thinking it was possible and I had done it in git, but I don't
remember how or see it in the documentation, so I think I was mistaken.
--
Joshua Pain
On 8/9/2011 10:58 AM, Richard Hipp wrote:
> Change the subject: Please help me to understand why people want to
> create a new branch before adding changes to that branch, rather than
> just waiting until they check-in their edits?
In SVN (and possibly others), you have to create the branch first
Personally, this is a habit I bring from git, mainly because I'm not aware
of any other way to doing things.
I was not aware of fossil commit -branch new-branch, seems like a much
better alternative.
Half the time I start hacking on something, then "oh, darn I should have
started a branch before
On Tue, 9 Aug 2011 10:58:02 -0400
Richard Hipp wrote:
> Please help me to understand why people want to
> create a new branch before adding changes to that branch, rather than
> just waiting until they check-in their edits? I'm not being
> sarcastic or critical here. A lot of people do this and
On Tue, Aug 9, 2011 at 10:28 AM, tpero...@compumation.com <
tpero...@compumation.com> wrote:
>
>
> fossil branch new Test 5947928ba
>
>
>
>
>
Change the subject: Please help me to understand why people want to create
a new branch before adding changes to that branch, rather than just waiting
36 matches
Mail list logo
