Re: [fossil-users] fossil coredumping and reporting malformed manifest on sparc64
2011/11/13 Lluís Batlle i Rossell vi...@viric.name I agree with Julian. There should be an answer, if the letter does not reach the list. I also like when it is not required to subscribe to send mails. In my experience, requiring subscription cuts down greatly on the amount of noise and essentially blocks all (or 99% of) spam from mailing lists. I don't think the write is related to the SIGBUS. i don't think it has anything directly to do with it, either. i suspect it's just bad timing or possibly memory corruption caused by stack abuse at some other point. That said, i think that any such bug is probably compiler-specific, since none of us are seeing it on non-sparc platforms. i will run push/pull through valgrind this evening, but i don't expect to see anything more drastic than a couple of standard leaks we have in (e.g.) the argument/parameter handling. If it is similar to 'strace', the = 512 means that the syscall succeeded and returned 512. correct: 512 is the return value of the write() call, == the number of bytes it was asked to write (512). -- - stephan beal http://wanderinghorse.net/home/stephan/ ___ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
[fossil-users] Trying out fossil: two issues with branches and empty folders
Hello I've been trying out fossil, and cam across two things so far that don't seem quite right. Could anyone advise if I am doing something wrong? *Creating a branch* When I use: fossil commit --branch New Branch - m Creating a new branch a new branch is created without a prompt, but when I use: fossil branch new Another Branch trunk I get prompted for my gpg password? fossil settings clearsign is set to default, and setting it to off makes no difference. *Empty Folders* When switching between branches, files are removed but empty folders are left hanging around. Empty folders also do not show up with fossil extras. I'm looking to switch between branches, and not have separate checkouts, but need to avoid these empty folders. What's the syntax / best way to do this? I could I guess script something to delete all the files before checking out a branch, but this seems ugly? ___ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
Re: [fossil-users] Trying out fossil: two issues with branches and empty folders
On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 12:17 PM, David Bovill da...@vaudevillecourt.tvwrote: *Empty Folders* When switching between branches, files are removed but empty folders are left hanging around. Empty folders also do not show up with fossil extras. I'm looking to switch between branches, and not have separate checkouts, but need to avoid these empty folders. What's the syntax / best way to do this? I could I guess script something to delete all the files before checking out a branch, but this seems ugly? Fossil doesn't track directories. If you want to get rid of empty ones, one way to do this in Unix is: find . -type d | xargs rmdir Notes: a) rmdir will refuse to delete non-empty dirs, so the above will likely spit out harmless warnings for non-emtpy dirs. b) spaces and whatnot in the names will break the above (how best/easiest to fix it depends partly on whether you're using GNU find or not). -- - stephan beal http://wanderinghorse.net/home/stephan/ ___ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
Re: [fossil-users] Trying out fossil: two issues with branches and empty folders
Thanks for that. Is the behaviour I am seeing for creating new branches using: fossil branch new Minimal trunc normal (always asking for a pgp signature), or am I making a syntax error somewhere? I've just upgraded to the latest build and ran fossil all rebuild, but get the same behaviour? On 14 November 2011 11:32, Stephan Beal sgb...@googlemail.com wrote: On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 12:17 PM, David Bovill da...@vaudevillecourt.tvwrote: *Empty Folders* When switching between branches, files are removed but empty folders are left hanging around. Empty folders also do not show up with fossil extras. I'm looking to switch between branches, and not have separate checkouts, but need to avoid these empty folders. What's the syntax / best way to do this? I could I guess script something to delete all the files before checking out a branch, but this seems ugly? Fossil doesn't track directories. If you want to get rid of empty ones, one way to do this in Unix is: find . -type d | xargs rmdir Notes: a) rmdir will refuse to delete non-empty dirs, so the above will likely spit out harmless warnings for non-emtpy dirs. b) spaces and whatnot in the names will break the above (how best/easiest to fix it depends partly on whether you're using GNU find or not). -- - stephan beal http://wanderinghorse.net/home/stephan/ ___ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users ___ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
Re: [fossil-users] Trying out fossil: two issues with branches and empty folders
On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 6:56 AM, David Bovill da...@vaudevillecourt.tvwrote: Thanks for that. Is the behaviour I am seeing for creating new branches using: fossil branch new Minimal trunc normal (always asking for a pgp signature), or am I making a syntax error somewhere? I've just upgraded to the latest build and ran fossil all rebuild, but get the same behaviour? fossil branch new simply creates a new check-in which is unchanged from the previous check-in. It is equivalent to doing: fossil commit -f --branch Minimal So if you have fossil configured to ask for the PGP signature when you commit (which is off by default) then it shouldn't be asking for the PGP signature when you do the branch new. If it is asking for PGP signatures, that's probably a (minor) bug. I never do fossil branch new myself - which is why I've never noticed this. On 14 November 2011 11:32, Stephan Beal sgb...@googlemail.com wrote: On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 12:17 PM, David Bovill da...@vaudevillecourt.tvwrote: *Empty Folders* When switching between branches, files are removed but empty folders are left hanging around. Empty folders also do not show up with fossil extras. I'm looking to switch between branches, and not have separate checkouts, but need to avoid these empty folders. What's the syntax / best way to do this? I could I guess script something to delete all the files before checking out a branch, but this seems ugly? Fossil doesn't track directories. If you want to get rid of empty ones, one way to do this in Unix is: find . -type d | xargs rmdir Notes: a) rmdir will refuse to delete non-empty dirs, so the above will likely spit out harmless warnings for non-emtpy dirs. b) spaces and whatnot in the names will break the above (how best/easiest to fix it depends partly on whether you're using GNU find or not). -- - stephan beal http://wanderinghorse.net/home/stephan/ ___ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users ___ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users -- D. Richard Hipp d...@sqlite.org ___ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
Re: [fossil-users] Trying out fossil: two issues with branches and empty folders
On 14 November 2011 12:05, Richard Hipp d...@sqlite.org wrote: fossil branch new simply creates a new check-in which is unchanged from the previous check-in. It is equivalent to doing: fossil commit -f --branch Minimal OK - thanks, the --force option will get me what I need. ___ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
Re: [fossil-users] Trying out fossil: two issues with branches and empty folders
On Mon, 14 Nov 2011 12:32:40 +0100 Stephan Beal sgb...@googlemail.com wrote: [...] Fossil doesn't track directories. If you want to get rid of empty ones, one way to do this in Unix is: find . -type d | xargs rmdir Notes: a) rmdir will refuse to delete non-empty dirs, so the above will likely spit out harmless warnings for non-emtpy dirs. b) spaces and whatnot in the names will break the above (how best/easiest to fix it depends partly on whether you're using GNU find or not). With GNU find it should be possible to just do find . -type d -empty -delete ___ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
[fossil-users] side-by-side diffs command line syntax
The side-by-side diffs are great, but I can't get the command line options (--side-by-side|-y side-by-side http://www.fossil-scm.org/fossil/help/diff) working. Both these fail: fossil diff --from previous --to current --side-by-side hello.txt fossil diff --from previous --to current -y hello.txt where fossil diff --from previous --to current hello.txt works fine (fossil version 1.20 [a75e2d2504] 2011-10-21 12:52:53 UTC). ___ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
[fossil-users] Fossil/Git fast-import issues
Hi all, I'm attempting to export a fossil repo to git. However, I get the following error on git import: fatal: mark :51 not declared Full crash log is here: https://gist.github.com/1363907 Fossil version: both latest master and 2011-10-21 Git version: 1.7.5.4 OS: Debian Linux 6.0 I've tried modifying the line in the fossil export result which is causing the problem from :51 to from :52 to see if it at least imports. Git then crashes on defines in the source code: fatal: Unsupported command: define _CHECKSUM_H_ Does anyone have any ideas about this? I can supply both fast-export output and fossil repo if required. Many thanks, Gareth R ___ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
Re: [fossil-users] fossil and SSL
On Sun, 2011-11-13 at 12:50 -0500, Richard Hipp wrote: On Sun, Nov 13, 2011 at 6:39 AM, ST smn...@gmail.com wrote: Hi, I'm new to fossil and have several questions: 1) how do I open new tickets on fossil-scm.org? I didn't see something like new ticket on the web UI... Anonymous ticketing was turned off because it was being flooded with support requests, rather than actual bug reports. For example, if it had been turned on, you probably would have written a bug report for this very question, wouldn't you? You are astute ;) We prefer to reserve tickets for reporting actual malfunctions, and so on fossil-scm.org, we require a username/password in order to write a new ticket. That goes a long way toward keeping down the noise. It has been suggested that we create a hold for moderation system for tickets, such that anonymous tickets can be input, but do not actually go into the system until approved by a registered user. That would allow random passers-by on the internet to write tickets, but would also let us filter the tickets to keep real bug reports and discard support requests, test tickets, and spam. I'll probably add a moderator system at some point, when I get a chance, if somebody else doesn't volunteer to do it first. But it isn't available right this moment. Sorry. With such excellent responses there is no need for this feature :) 2) why do I have to do this http://www.fossil-scm.org/index.html/doc/trunk/www/custom_ticket.wiki manually? Shouldn't this be there out of the box? It's kind of basic functionality that one finds in any ticket tracking app... It is there out-of-the-box. The page above merely shows you how to modify the default setup, in case you want to do something a little different from what the out-of-the-box configuration does. Pardon. I'm on a debian stable with fossil version from 2010-08-08 21:16:13 . I didn't see this functionality in my old fossil version and assumed (after reading that page) that it is intentionally not implemented. 3) as far as I understand if one accidentally starts fossil server/fossil ui - it will provide insecure access to the repository even if one had configured inetd/stunnel/fossil to use SSL, right? Is there a way to avoid such situations and force fossil to always use SSL? fossil ui binds to 127.0.0.1 only, so it is not accessible from other machines on the network. If you do fossil server then your repository will be accessible remotely (on port 8080 by default) but people still need to know user names and passwords in order to log in. Yes, but data stream is unencrypted. But it seems rather difficult to accidently run fossil server, no? How do you accidentally start a server? Well, only the universe can come into existence completely accidently, what I meant was when somebody types fossil server without realizing or forgetting for a moment that the data will be sent unencrypted. Another possible reason for misusing fossil server could be laziness: two employers decide to exchange data ad hoc using fossil server without SSL because, let's say, certificate has expired, or wasn't issued (yet) for the client, even though the client is allowed to access the repo. So if there were option like always use SSL - disabling it would be as difficult as issuing new certificate and the two would prefer the later. Thank you, ST ___ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
[fossil-users] renaming and modifying a file hides a delete
(on fossil 1.20) I've renamed a file, and modified the new one without any commit in the middle, and then 'fossil status' or 'fossil commit' do not show that it *removes* the old name. Regarding a revert of that change in the working copy, it deletes the 'new file', but does not restore the removed file. If then I do other changes, and commit them, it does not show anything special in the commit log comments, but it commits a silent *DELETE* for the first file I had moved. I just had to recover a deleted file from history, because of that. I hope someone understands the steps. :) If not, please tell me. Regards, Lluís. ___ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
Re: [fossil-users] Internal Server Error on files page after push
It's fixed now; I don't know why it works, but it does work. I did the following: 1. Delete the local fossil repository 2. Remove the _FOSSIL_ file from the local checked out directory. 3. fossil clone the server repository 4. fossil open into the local checked out directory 5. fossil add * all of the files 6. fossil commit 7. check the local repo - it has the added files 8. fossil push with the URL of the server 9. Check the server repo - it has the changed files. Thanks. Richard On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 1:20 PM, Richard Boehme rboe...@gmail.com wrote: The directory containing the repo is also writable; I had set it to worls-readable and writable for a short time just to make sure. Thanks. Richard On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 12:38 PM, Stephan Beal sgb...@googlemail.com wrote: On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 6:31 PM, Ron Wilson ronw.m...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 11:08 AM, Richard Boehme rboe...@gmail.com wrote: My local fossil copy is at C:\Users\Richard Boehme\Dropbox\apps\bin Are you using Dropbox to backup your repository? Is it possible Dropbox is doing something that interferes with Fossil? FWIW: i use fossil-in-dropbox for several small repos and have had no problems with it to-date. Dropbox won't merge conflicting repo files (it will instead create two copies, one of them named something like filename (conflict)). Nonetheless, to keep dropbox from trying to copy the short-lived journal files, i tend to (but don't always) disable dropbox while i'm working with such a repo. -- - stephan beal http://wanderinghorse.net/home/stephan/ ___ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users -- Thank you. Richard Boehme Email: rboe...@gmail.com Phone: 443-739-8502 Blog: http://www.inexperiencetalking.com/ -- Thank you. Richard Boehme Email: rboe...@gmail.com Phone: 443-739-8502 Blog: http://www.inexperiencetalking.com/ ___ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
[fossil-users] [best practice] Including external dependencies
Hi all, A best practice question: What is the preferred way to include external libraries in a fossil repository? I mean larger dependencies like boost. For small libs and tools like a few binary or source code files, I tend to include them directly in the repo but for larger ones it doesn't seem like a proper approach, esp. when the library code is much larger than my sources. On stackoverflow I read that git to address this issue has something called 'subprojects' (http://stackoverflow.com/questions/2994005/including-external-c-libraries-in-version-control). Has anyone used that? Is creating a separate fossil repo with the library files an equivalent way? Thanks, Jacek ___ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
[fossil-users] fossil add + update, removes the added file
Hello, another one! I was in a branch. I added a file (wrote it, and fossil add file). I decided I wanted to commit in another branch; fossil update branch. And fossil removed the file I was about to commit. Luckily 'fossil undo' helped... Worth fixing though. (fossil 1.20) Regards, Lluís. ___ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
Re: [fossil-users] fossil add + update, removes the added file
On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 03:21:30PM +0100, Lluís Batlle i Rossell wrote: I was in a branch. I added a file (wrote it, and fossil add file). I decided I wanted to commit in another branch; fossil update branch. And fossil removed the file I was about to commit. Luckily 'fossil undo' helped... Worth fixing though. Sorry, the error was somewhere else... forget this one; I'll send a message apart about the trouble. ___ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
[fossil-users] The ui shows me twice the same file 'added' in a checkin
I added the same file that I had removed in a previous checkin. THe new checkin looks like this in the UI: Changes -- show unified diffs show side-by-side diffs patch Added CMakeLists.txt version [23aa5af411789697] Added CMakeLists.txt version [23aa5af411789697] The manifest is a delta manifest, as was the manifest of the removing checkin. The file does not appear twice in the manifest. I tried this in 1.20 and the current trunk, and both behave equal. Regards, Lluís ___ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
Re: [fossil-users] renaming and modifying a file hides a delete
Lluis, That's the same issue I noted in my email from Oct 25 (subject: mv + revert irregularity) and it contains a short shell script demonstrating the problem as you stated. It's not clear what the proper behavior is on revert of this kind; I sent a reminder email regarding the issue yesterday and if Richard/consensus can determine the desired behavior I'd be willing to try to implement that behavior. -KQ On Mon, 14 Nov 2011 07:06:14 -0700, Lluís Batlle i Rossell vi...@viric.name wrote: (on fossil 1.20) I've renamed a file, and modified the new one without any commit in the middle, and then 'fossil status' or 'fossil commit' do not show that it *removes* the old name. Regarding a revert of that change in the working copy, it deletes the 'new file', but does not restore the removed file. If then I do other changes, and commit them, it does not show anything special in the commit log comments, but it commits a silent *DELETE* for the first file I had moved. I just had to recover a deleted file from history, because of that. I hope someone understands the steps. :) If not, please tell me. Regards, Lluís. ___ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users -- -KQ ___ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
Re: [fossil-users] [best practice] Including external dependencies
On Nov 14, 2011, at 3:19 PM, Jacek Cała wrote: A best practice question: What is the preferred way to include external libraries in a fossil repository? I mean larger dependencies like boost. For small libs and tools like a few binary or source code files, I tend to include them directly in the repo but for larger ones it doesn't seem like a proper approach, esp. when the library code is much larger than my sources. Depends on the environment, but I'm kind of a fan of it's scripted approach. I remember a friend putting into our cmake some black magic that would downloadbuildinstall missing dependencies. I guess if your shop is homogenous this should not be that hard. Kind regards, Remigiusz Modrzejewski ___ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
Re: [fossil-users] [best practice] Including external dependencies
I'd like to know more about this as well. As I understand it you can nest fossil repositories, I haven't tried it yet, but AFAIK you can have a nested checkout within an existing checkout, and you can open it with the fossil open --nested command. 2011/11/14 Jacek Cała jacek.c...@gmail.com Hi all, A best practice question: What is the preferred way to include external libraries in a fossil repository? I mean larger dependencies like boost. For small libs and tools like a few binary or source code files, I tend to include them directly in the repo but for larger ones it doesn't seem like a proper approach, esp. when the library code is much larger than my sources. On stackoverflow I read that git to address this issue has something called 'subprojects' ( http://stackoverflow.com/questions/2994005/including-external-c-libraries-in-version-control ). Has anyone used that? Is creating a separate fossil repo with the library files an equivalent way? ___ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
Re: [fossil-users] [best practice] Including external dependencies
On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 11:11 AM, David Bovill da...@vaudevillecourt.tvwrote: I'd like to know more about this as well. As I understand it you can nest fossil repositories, I haven't tried it yet, but AFAIK you can have a nested checkout within an existing checkout, and you can open it with the fossil open --nested command. All --nested currently does is allow you to put one Fossil check-out inside another. To be really useful, we need to enhance it to go to the next level, and automatically next commits and pushes and pulls, etc. 2011/11/14 Jacek Cała jacek.c...@gmail.com Hi all, A best practice question: What is the preferred way to include external libraries in a fossil repository? I mean larger dependencies like boost. For small libs and tools like a few binary or source code files, I tend to include them directly in the repo but for larger ones it doesn't seem like a proper approach, esp. when the library code is much larger than my sources. On stackoverflow I read that git to address this issue has something called 'subprojects' ( http://stackoverflow.com/questions/2994005/including-external-c-libraries-in-version-control ). Has anyone used that? Is creating a separate fossil repo with the library files an equivalent way? ___ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users -- D. Richard Hipp d...@sqlite.org ___ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
Re: [fossil-users] Providing fossil as a vcs, wiki or blog for 'users'
On Sun, Nov 13, 2011 at 4:33 PM, Julian Fagir listensamm...@komkon2.de wrote: So, my question: Do you think fossil is appropriate? It really depends on your and your customers' needs. It works well for decent number of projects. Certainly has has served the needs of the projects my coworkers and I work on. I was able to implement a few features we wanted through Fossil's built in scripting language. Really, only you can determine of it meets your needs. As you continue to explore its features, you should become obvious whether it will meet your needs. In some cases, you can find solutions (or partial solutions) either on this list, or in the Fossil cook book. Good Luck. ___ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
