drh added on 2010-10-03 18:12:08:
My personal opinion is that the "branch new" command should be removed. I don't see the point it in. One does not have to "create" branches in Fossil - they spring into existence on their own as they are needed.

I suspect that the "branch new" command stems from prior exposure to other VCSes (svn perhaps?) where branches do have to be explicitly created prior to use. But Fossil does not work that way. My suspicion is that the "branch new" command was added for familiarity for people coming from other VCSes. I did not have anything to do with the "branch" command myself.

Looking further, I see that the "branch list" command does not appear very helpful either, at least not in its current form. Perhaps if "branch list" actually returned a list of branches, rather than a timeline, it would be useful for something. But in its present form, my preference would be to remove the entire "branch" command - both "branch new" and "branch list".

So, are there any objections to solving this ticket simply by removing the "branch" command? What arguments are there in favor of keeping the "branch" command around?

wolfgang added on 2010-10-03 18:36:42:
I would prefer to have a command like branch new. Before i start a new development step, which will become a branch, i usually

• open a new checkout
• define the branch
• update to the newly created branch

So i prevent to checkin something on the main trunk, which shouldn't be there.

Without defining the branch at the development start, i have to remember to give my 'branch' a name and a background color - until first commit.

This working style is inspired by cvs, but i think, it works well with fossil.

Instead of "fossil branch list" i always use the gui, so i don't need this command.

best regards Wolfgang

renez added on 2010-10-04 20:22:02:
I have no proble with removing the branch command. In fact you can still do the cvs branch way but have to use

• open a new checkout
• define the branch like so: fossil commit --branch rene --comment "just an other branch"

Would it be logical if you could do also:

• fossil commit --tag rene --comment "just an other tag"

wolfgang added on 2010-10-04 20:48:34:
adding the branch at commit time is possible, but doesn't match the working style, to start with a branch! The branch itself is an important step in this working style. We document the fact, that there is active development by starting the branch - without any changes!

OK, we can do a commt with branch and force. This would be a proper replacement for the branch new command. But in this case, it should be mentioned in the documentation - maybe as a table of command replacements:

• scm (example: CVS)
• scm command(cvs tag -b branch)
• fossil replacement(fossil commit -m "start new branch" -b branch -f)

dmitry added on 2011-09-08 21:21:36 UTC:
Duplicate of [5e624dbfca4c].