Thus said Richard Hipp on Sat, 22 Oct 2016 13:04:52 -0400: > I think it is reasonable to request a new option to 'fossil server" to > bind to a single address (other than loopback).
Definitely, given that ``fossil server'' exists, one shouldn't have to rely on tcpserver or any other inetd-like setup to bind to a different address. > So are there any objections now to taking trunk as the 1.36 release so > that we can move forward on these kinds of things? Do we want to address the bugs that Venkat Iyer recently reported with the ticket command before or after 1.36? If after, then I think we're ready to go with 1.36. Andy -- TAI64 timestamp: 40000000580bbf76 _______________________________________________ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
