|
2010-12-14
| ||
| 00:31 | • Fixed ticket [33d2bf3988]: "fossil update" should get current branch if multiple descendants plus 1 other change ... (artifact: 3a85fe76b6 user: drh) | |
| 00:30 | When doing a "fossil update" if there are multiple descendents but only one descendent in the same branch as current, then go to that one descendent without complaining. Ticket [33d2bf39889352f2f] ... (check-in: 4beacb6dc4 user: drh tags: trunk) | |
|
2010-12-13
| ||
| 17:07 | • New ticket [33d2bf3988] "fossil update" should get current branch if multiple descendants. ... (artifact: 3dd7622719 user: ron) | |
| Ticket Hash: | 33d2bf39889352f2f11895277f52d4f62e90fd8f | |||
| Title: | "fossil update" should get current branch if multiple descendants | |||
| Status: | Fixed | Type: | Feature_Request | |
| Severity: | Minor | Priority: | ||
| Subsystem: | Resolution: | Fixed | ||
| Last Modified: | 2010-12-14 00:31:02 | |||
| Version Found In: | ||||
| Description: | ||||
|
This is something which has bothered me for a while:
"A", "B" and "C" check out a repo. "B" and "C" make changes. "B" checks in on a new branch, "C" checks in on the original branch. Now, when "A" does fossil update, he gets a nice informational message about the two descendant branches, but fossil does not get anything unless told which branch to get. My suggestion is that fossil update should always get the branch it was on originally unless told otherwise. It should also inform the user if there are new branches in the meantime, but the existence of new branches should be informative and not an obstacle. | ||||