Thus said "j. van den hoff" on Fri, 17 Apr 2015 07:51:26 +0200:
> but if changing the terminology really is a seriously considered
> issue, than I cannot abstain from proposing "shoot" instead (which
> would open the theoretical possibility to indicate it as `SHOOT!' in
> the CLI timel
> Fossil simply defines it:
>
> Having more than one leaf in the check-in DAG is called a "fork."
>
>
After re-reading the wiki section that you pointed out I have a much better
understanding of how Fossil defines a fork. Thanks for pointing that out.
What I'm surprised at, after following both di
>
> github calling the project clone maintained on the server side a fork (I
> believe that's what it is, right?).
>
>
100% correct; a Github fork is a server-side clone.
A Github fork is also part of the project "fork network". This membership
allows you to propose changes from your copy of the
On Thu, 16 Apr 2015 22:58:55 +0200, Ron W wrote:
On Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at 4:30 PM, Scott Robison
wrote:
Some thoughts:
More seriously, the Wikipedia article on forking is probably worth a
read:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fork_(software_development)
I would claim that github is the odd
On Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at 2:58 PM, Ron W wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at 4:30 PM, Scott Robison
> wrote:
>>
>> Some thoughts:
>>
>> More seriously, the Wikipedia article on forking is probably worth a
>> read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fork_(software_development)
>>
>> I would claim that githu
On Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at 4:30 PM, Scott Robison
wrote:
>
> Some thoughts:
>
> More seriously, the Wikipedia article on forking is probably worth a read:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fork_(software_development)
>
> I would claim that github is the odd man out here, having appropriated a
> term tha
Thus said Ron W on Thu, 16 Apr 2015 15:27:38 -0400:
> So I don't know of an alternative term already in use to suggest. Not
> can I think of any other alternative term to suggest.
I don't know of an alternative either; perhaps a duplicate descendant
line.
Fossil simply defines it:
Having mo
On Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at 1:27 PM, Ron W wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at 2:41 PM, Andy Bradford
> wrote:
>
>> This document contains what Fossil considers a fork:
>>
>> https://www.fossil-scm.org/index.html/doc/trunk/www/branching.wiki
>
>
> Yes. And the _connotation_ of the term "fork" within th
On Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at 2:41 PM, Andy Bradford
wrote:
> This document contains what Fossil considers a fork:
>
> https://www.fossil-scm.org/index.html/doc/trunk/www/branching.wiki
Yes. And the _connotation_ of the term "fork" within the Fossil community
is unintended/accidental commit to a pare
Thus said Ron W on Thu, 16 Apr 2015 12:49:43 -0400:
> Unfortunately, I had no luck finding any better term for what Fossil
> calls a "fork". (My search-fu maybe off this morning.)
This document contains what Fossil considers a fork:
https://www.fossil-scm.org/index.html/doc/trunk/www/branching
On Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at 1:30 PM, James Moger wrote:
> Mercurial would call a Fossil fork a "head"[1].
>
> -J
>
> [1]: http://mercurial.selenic.com/wiki/MultipleHeads
>
That would be what Fossil calls a "Leaf". I suppose, one could argue that,
in Fossil, a "fork" is a special case of a "leaf", bu
Mercurial would call a Fossil fork a "head"[1].
-J
[1]: http://mercurial.selenic.com/wiki/MultipleHeads
On Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at 12:49 PM, Ron W wrote:
> As the flurry of discussion of "forks" starts to ebb, it occurred to me
> there is a conflict between how Fossil defines "fork" and how many
As the flurry of discussion of "forks" starts to ebb, it occurred to me
there is a conflict between how Fossil defines "fork" and how many open
source project define "fork".
Fossil defines "fork" as an accidental, unintended "branch" in the commit
history.
But, to many in the open source communit
13 matches
Mail list logo
