On Sat, Feb 25, 2012 at 02:26, Gour g...@atmarama.net wrote:
On Fri, 24 Feb 2012 18:13:15 -0500
Leo Razoumov slonik...@gmail.com wrote:
One thing that I miss in fossil above everything else is inability to
push/pull individual branches or/and individual artifacts. This is
really big item on
On Sat, Feb 25, 2012 at 2:26 AM, Gour g...@atmarama.net wrote:
Right. I'd like to have simple 'rollback' as well in a situation when I
quickly find out that the commit was simply mistake...
A key philosophical design principle of Fossil is no erasures. This is
how business financial
On Sat, Feb 25, 2012 at 09:17, Richard Hipp d...@sqlite.org wrote:
A key philosophical design principle of Fossil is no erasures. This is
how business financial accounting is (or used to be) done. You write in
ink.
I am fine with this philosophy of no-rewriting of published history.
And I
Hi List,
I am trying to accomplish a cascading work-flow Personal.fossil -
Team.fossil - Public.fossil without history rewriting.
Right now fossil has concept of private branches that are tagged
with private. Those branches are pushed/pulled only in presence of
--private option. Everything else
On Sat, February 25, 2012 5:44 pm, Leo Razoumov wrote:
On Sat, Feb 25, 2012 at 09:17, Richard Hipp d...@sqlite.org wrote:
A key philosophical design principle of Fossil is no erasures. This
is
how business financial accounting is (or used to be) done. You write in
ink.
I am fine with
On Sat, Feb 25, 2012 at 14:19, Eric e...@deptj.eu wrote:
On Sat, February 25, 2012 5:44 pm, Leo Razoumov wrote:
I am fine with this philosophy of no-rewriting of published history.
And I am *not* asking for a git rebase equivalent.
But I have to follow a work-flow that consists of a cascade
On Sat, Feb 25, 2012 at 09:17:57AM -0500, Richard Hipp wrote:
For contributing to Fossil itself, there is a Pre-checkin Checklist that
developers are suppose to follow prior to each 'fossil commit. (A
similar checklist exists for SQLite.) A key element of this checklist is
the
On Sat, Feb 25, 2012 at 01:33:45PM -0500, Leo Razoumov wrote:
Hi List,
I am trying to accomplish a cascading work-flow Personal.fossil -
Team.fossil - Public.fossil without history rewriting.
I would like to entertain an idea of adding explicit public tag
which will propagate in a way
On Sat, 25 Feb 2012 06:48:59 -0500
Leo Razoumov slonik...@gmail.com wrote:
For the most part I use private branches as for-my-eyes-only throw
away temporaries which are cleansed with fossil scrub.
Heh today after more detailed reading of the docs, I've 'found out'
that fossil scrub --private
On Sat, Feb 25, 2012 at 18:17, Gour g...@atmarama.net wrote:
Heh today after more detailed reading of the docs, I've 'found out'
that fossil scrub --private might be good enough as replacing hg's MQ
extension...Was absent the whole day and will try tomorrow.
Be aware that fossil scrub
On Sat, 25 Feb 2012 09:17:57 -0500
Richard Hipp d...@sqlite.org wrote:
A key philosophical design principle of Fossil is no erasures.
This is how business financial accounting is (or used to be) done.
You write in ink. If an error is found, you annotate the erroneous
entry with a note of
On Sat, Feb 25, 2012 at 09:17, Richard Hipp d...@sqlite.org wrote:
A key philosophical design principle of Fossil is no erasures. This is
how business financial accounting is (or used to be) done. You write in
ink. If an error is found, you annotate the erroneous entry with a note of
Why not just productize limsync?
- Original Message -
From: Leo Razoumov
Sent: 02/26/12 03:03 AM
To: Fossil SCM user's discussion
Subject: Re: [fossil-users] feature proposal: explicitly public branches
On Sat, Feb 25, 2012 at 16:29, Christopher Berardi cbera...@natoufa.com
On 02/26/12 03:09, altufa...@mail.com wrote:
Why not just productize limsync?
Going by what Brian Smith has written, it's a question of having time
do work on it and handling a few special cases.
Brian, if you need any kind of assistance, please let us know. I
really want this feature.
On Sat, Feb 25, 2012 at 21:30, Jan Danielsson
jan.m.daniels...@gmail.com wrote:
On 02/26/12 03:09, altufa...@mail.com wrote:
Why not just productize limsync?
Going by what Brian Smith has written, it's a question of having time
do work on it and handling a few special cases.
Brian, if
15 matches
Mail list logo
