Re: [fossil-users] Proposed Change To Wiki vs. HTML
On Sun, 25 Jul 2010 17:47:56 -0400, Richard Hipp d...@sqlite.org wrote: I really, really do not like the Use-HTML-Wiki switch and I rue the day that I ever allowed that into the code. I have no desire to make the situation worse by making the Use-HTML-Wiki switch even more complicated. What Use-HTML-Wiki really comes down to is yet another wiki mode. Everybody (me included) has their own idea of what markup wiki should follow. Popular requests include Creole and Markdown. It seems to me that the Use-HTML-Wiki flag and the suggested improvements below are really just alternative wiki modes. When I first started writing Fossil, I did not understand how contentious an issue the choice of wiki markup would become In an effort to keep the peace, I am willing to consider enhancements to Fossil that support varying wiki modes, providing that those enhancements are carefully designed and thought out and do not become a pile of confused and discombobulated switches and options that slowly grow by accretion. The formatting options should be easily described on one 8.5x11 piece of paper. Anything more complicated than that is to complicated. A proposal: Five wiki modes: (1) For backwards compatibility, we must support Fossil wiki (including the safe subset of HTML). (2) In addition, some people request unfiltered, pure HTML so that they can edit documents using HTML editors. I proposed to also add formatters for (3) Creole and (4) Markdown. Finally, we add (5) plain text - no markup at all. No further options or modes are permitted. Zero. Nada. For embedded documentation, file that end in .html or .htm are rendered as pure HTML with no interpretation and with no header or footer added. File that end in .wiki are rendered using Fossil wiki. Files that end in .creole or .markdown are rendered using their respective formatters. Files ending in .txt are rendered as plain text. All wiki files and plain text files have the standard headers and footers added. For tickets, wiki, and check-in comments, each repository has global rendering mode setting which defaults to Fossil Wiki but which can be changed to one of Pure HTML (with no [...] interpretation, so slightly different from the current Use-HTML-Wiki flag) or Creole or Markdown or Plain Text. All check-in comments are always rendered using the global rendering mode. Wiki and Tickets are rendered using the global rendering mode, but there are special markups that can be specified once near the top of the document to determine the renderer used for the entire document: These rendering-mode selection markups can only appear once and must be the first text other than whitespace to appear in the document. It is not possible to include multiple markup styles in the same document. It is not possible to automatically translate from one style to another. The Use-HTML-Wiki flag will go away (to be replaced by the pure-HTML global rendering mode). The document rendering modes are the same for all users, except user will have to have a special permission flag in order to be able to edit pure HTML wiki or tickets. User's without necessary permission will not be allowed to begin editing documents in pure HTML mode and if they try to change the rendering mode as part of their edit, their change will not be accepted. No other modes. No other customization options. No other flags or switches. Will such an enhancement come closer to meeting peoples needs? I think its overkill and places a maintenance burden on the fossil maintainers. Make a choice between creole or markdown or whatever. It is impossible to satisfy all. Text is the absence of any formatting and that can be done in any mode. What I find wrong in the current wiki is the use of nowiki and verbatim because they are not html tags. If the current wiki would be extended to cvstrac functionality I would be satisfied. Rene ___ 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 gui progress
Looks great! On Friday, July 23, 2010, Sergey Volkov s...@mooby.org wrote: Hi guys! I just want to show my progress with creation of Fossil GUI. I'm new in creation GUI programs, most time i work on websites. So this is screenshots: Fossil | 117237909801520996711 http://picasaweb.google.com/117237909801520996711/Fossil# It works on Ubuntu with Ruby GTK, not really useful right now, but i work on it. Best regards! ___ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users -- -- Stephen De Gabrielle stephen.degabrie...@acm.org Telephone +44 (0)20 85670911 Mobile+44 (0)79 85189045 http://www.degabrielle.name/stephen ___ 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-users Digest, Vol 30, Issue 23
On 27 Jul 2010, at 11:37, Zed wrote: But again, none of this matters for my point. I'm not talking about wiki, I'm talking about HTML documentation. If there was a way to generate HTML using any of the many docs generators out there, and then check it into fossil so that fossil styles it, then you could use whatever wiki format you wanted. It would future proof and satisfy all the whiners. Is it not sufficient to simply have a link in the the existing wiki to the generated documentation? The site wouldn't have a single style then though… are there other drawbacks? -- benj...@fysh.org - Twitter @benjohnbarnes - Skype benjohnbarnes - Mobile +44 (0) 7968 851 636 ___ 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] Hosted fossil solution
Alright well I finally managed to sit down over the weekend and get something up and running. You can check out the web app at: http://chiselapp.com You can currently create an account, create new repositories as well as clone existing ones. Repositories are served up like: https://chiselapp.com/user/james/repository/fossil Currently I'm limiting 5 repositories per account, everything should be considered in an alpha state, but so far everything seems to be running smoothly. Let me know if you run into any issues or have suggestions. Thanks. On Jul 21, 2010, at 1:08 PM, Richard Hipp wrote: On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 12:53 PM, James Turner ja...@calminferno.net wrote: I'm currently playing around with the idea and code for a hosted fossil solution. Since each fossil repository already has everything you would need, the solution would be more of a fossil repository management tool on the web, that would let you create/manage repositories and provide a mechanism to serve them (still working on the best solution for this part). I was just wondering if this is a service that people might find useful? As you have observed, Fossil strives to be a hosted-solution-in-a-box. Just add the host and you are ready to roll. So I'm thinking that the hosted Fossil idea is not nearly as useful as GitHub, since the distance between raw Fossil and your hosted solution is far less than the distance from raw git to GitHub. That said, even Fossil requires a host. So if you don't already have a host sitting around (as many people don't) I think such a service would be quite useful. Please keep us posted of your progress! I'm still hashing out my ideas and currently have very basic code up and running (creating/deleting/account mgmt). Since everything is distributed within fossil there isn't any kind of lockin, so it's more of a way to remove the small overhead of setting up a fossil repository somewhere. Feel free to let me know what you all think, or maybe point me to a solution that already exists? Thanks. ___ 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 ___ 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] Hosted fossil solution
On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 10:15 PM, James Turner ja...@calminferno.netwrote: Alright well I finally managed to sit down over the weekend and get something up and running. You can check out the web app at: http://chiselapp.com You can currently create an account, create new repositories as well as clone existing ones. Repositories are served up like: https://chiselapp.com/user/james/repository/fossil Currently I'm limiting 5 repositories per account, everything should be considered in an alpha state, but so far everything seems to be running smoothly. Let me know if you run into any issues or have suggestions. Thanks. Very nice. Thanks for this! I added a link to Chisel from the Fossil homepage. Will the mirror of Fossil that you have on Chisel automatically sync at some point? Do you have a cron job that does that? How does that work? On Jul 21, 2010, at 1:08 PM, Richard Hipp wrote: On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 12:53 PM, James Turner ja...@calminferno.netwrote: I'm currently playing around with the idea and code for a hosted fossil solution. Since each fossil repository already has everything you would need, the solution would be more of a fossil repository management tool on the web, that would let you create/manage repositories and provide a mechanism to serve them (still working on the best solution for this part). I was just wondering if this is a service that people might find useful? As you have observed, Fossil strives to be a hosted-solution-in-a-box. Just add the host and you are ready to roll. So I'm thinking that the hosted Fossil idea is not nearly as useful as GitHub, since the distance between raw Fossil and your hosted solution is far less than the distance from raw git to GitHub. That said, even Fossil requires a host. So if you don't already have a host sitting around (as many people don't) I think such a service would be quite useful. Please keep us posted of your progress! I'm still hashing out my ideas and currently have very basic code up and running (creating/deleting/account mgmt). Since everything is distributed within fossil there isn't any kind of lockin, so it's more of a way to remove the small overhead of setting up a fossil repository somewhere. Feel free to let me know what you all think, or maybe point me to a solution that already exists? Thanks. ___ 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 ___ 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] [PATCH] Reimplementation of the reconstruct command that went missing
Hi, I've created the following ticket for this patch: http://www.fossil-scm.org/index.html/info/dfe1fc608a Thanks, -B On Sun, Jul 11, 2010 at 8:49 PM, Brian Smith br...@linuxfood.net wrote: Hi All, During the move from GPL to BSD, the 'reconstruct' command went missing. I assume this was due to licensing issues. I've re-implemented it, since, my git-import tool depends on it. This implementation is black box. I've not examined the original source for reconstruct at all. At the moment, it's in rebuild.c, since that seemed to be the most sensible place for it. I've not done a reimplementation of deconstruct, though, it would be fairly trivial to do so. If this is acceptable and can be accepted into trunk immediately, then great. Otherwise, please let me know of any stylistic/functional changes needed to do so. Either way, I'm prepared to send in copyright release. -B ___ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
