Re: [fossil-users] Why we should NEVER use inetd/xinetd

Hi, Thanks to Joerg who give some nice perspective about software. Thank to Warren which tries to talk. Warren said : >« I just did a search for inetd at the NVD CVE search, and got nothing >relevant to running Fossil under inetd » a) I don't talk about Fossil. My talk is about inetd/xinetd

Re: [fossil-users] features I'd like to have in fossil

Hi, >« Be concrete: how do you want tags to work which makes them entirely >different from branches? » I've said that tags and branches are the same technically speaking. However, for people those are not the same : for example the master branch is a special branch. When in git you do : git

Re: [fossil-users] windows compiling with MS VC

On 10/24/2016 2:12 PM, jungle Boogie wrote: On 24 October 2016 at 13:08, Warren Young wrote: ‘cl’ and related tools are not in the PATH after installing Visual Studio. If you look in the Start Menu folder for Visual Studio, you will find something like “VS2015 x86 Native

Re: [fossil-users] windows compiling with MS VC

On Oct 24, 2016, at 3:12 PM, jungle Boogie wrote: > > On 24 October 2016 at 13:08, Warren Young wrote: >> VS2015 x86 Native Tools Command Prompt. > > SUCCESS! I had put this big ugly thing in my path thinking it had all > the toolchain necessary but

Re: [fossil-users] Why we should NEVER use inetd/xinetd

On Mon, Oct 24, 2016 at 02:36:23PM -0600, Warren Young wrote: > On Oct 24, 2016, at 2:16 PM, Joerg Sonnenberger wrote: > > > > On Mon, Oct 24, 2016 at 09:56:45AM -0600, Warren Young wrote: > >> The only common exception is this recent trend of replacing old, > >> bloated software

Re: [fossil-users] windows compiling with MS VC

On 24 October 2016 at 13:08, Warren Young wrote: > On Oct 24, 2016, at 2:03 PM, jungle Boogie wrote: >> >> On 24 October 2016 at 11:44, jungle Boogie wrote: >>> Building zlib from "..\compat\zlib"... >>> >>>cl -c

Re: [fossil-users] remote check in

On Oct 24, 2016, at 2:59 PM, Warren Young wrote: > > There is an experimental (?) feature of Fossil allowing it to operate as a > FUSE filesystem. I’ve just peeked into the code for that, and it appears the Fossil fusefs feature is read-only. If someone were to make this

Re: [fossil-users] remote check in

On Oct 24, 2016, at 2:32 PM, Adam Jensen wrote: > > On 10/24/2016 03:07 PM, Warren Young wrote: >> I don’t know that Fossil is all that close to any other software >> system you’ve likely used before. > > Isn't it a file (version) management system based on an embedded

Re: [fossil-users] Why we should NEVER use inetd/xinetd

On Oct 24, 2016, at 2:16 PM, Joerg Sonnenberger wrote: > > On Mon, Oct 24, 2016 at 09:56:45AM -0600, Warren Young wrote: >> The only common exception is this recent trend of replacing old, >> bloated software that grew organically over decades with well-focused >> fresh

Re: [fossil-users] remote check in

On 10/24/2016 03:07 PM, Warren Young wrote: > I don’t know that Fossil is all that close to any other software > system you’ve likely used before. Isn't it a file (version) management system based on an embedded database? On 10/23/2016 06:13 PM, Scott Doctor wrote: > My current workflow uses a

Re: [fossil-users] features I'd like to have in fossil

On Mon, Oct 24, 2016 at 10:35:46AM -0600, Warren Young wrote: > As far as I can tell, syncing to a remote repository locks the entire > remote repository, making it *worse* than Fossil, not better. (SQLite > concurrency locks only single tables, not the whole database, and then > only for writes,

Re: [fossil-users] windows compiling with MS VC

On Oct 24, 2016, at 2:08 PM, Warren Young wrote: > > On Oct 24, 2016, at 2:03 PM, jungle Boogie wrote: >> >> On 24 October 2016 at 11:44, jungle Boogie wrote: >>> Building zlib from "..\compat\zlib"... >>> >>> cl -c

Re: [fossil-users] Why we should NEVER use inetd/xinetd

On Mon, Oct 24, 2016 at 09:56:45AM -0600, Warren Young wrote: > The only common exception is this recent trend of replacing old, > bloated software that grew organically over decades with well-focused > fresh alternatives. (e.g. BIND vs nsd/unbound, LibreSSL vs OpenSSL, > Postfix vs Sendmail,

Re: [fossil-users] windows compiling with MS VC

On Oct 24, 2016, at 2:03 PM, jungle Boogie wrote: > > On 24 October 2016 at 11:44, jungle Boogie wrote: >> Building zlib from "..\compat\zlib"... >> >>cl -c -D_CRT_SECURE_NO_DEPRECATE -D_CRT_NONSTDC_NO_DEPRECATE >> -nologo -MD -W3 -O2

Re: [fossil-users] windows compiling with MS VC

On 24 October 2016 at 11:44, jungle Boogie wrote: > On 24 October 2016 at 11:17, Richard Hipp wrote: >> If you want to build Fossil from sources on windows using MSVC, then >> use the trunk. > > Downloaded 1.36 cloned trunk and attempting the build

Re: [fossil-users] remote check in

On Oct 24, 2016, at 11:33 AM, Scott Doctor wrote: > > The issues I initially had with fossil were due to a misunderstanding about > how fossil works. An issue is that clicking the help button in the fossil UI > gives a wall of commands. If the repository’s /help URL is

Re: [fossil-users] windows compiling with MS VC

On 24 October 2016 at 11:17, Richard Hipp wrote: > If you want to build Fossil from sources on windows using MSVC, then > use the trunk. Downloaded 1.36 cloned trunk and attempting the build again: fossil-trunk\fossil\win>"C:\Program Files (x86)\Microsoft Visual Studio

Re: [fossil-users] windows compiling with MS VC

On 10/24/2016 02:17 PM, Richard Hipp wrote: > Yes, except that Andy broken the build while we were in the quiet > period leading up to the 1.36 release Nice job, Andy http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/tumblr_nqxexloObr1rubttio1_400.gif ___

Re: [fossil-users] remote check in

On 10/24/2016 01:33 PM, Scott Doctor wrote: [snip] > I think the documentation should group the most commonly used commands > from the master list. Maybe make several groups presented in most-used > to rarely-used groupings. A primer should avoid permuting the possible > operations until later (it

Re: [fossil-users] windows compiling with MS VC

On 10/24/16, Andy Bradford wrote: > Thus said Richard Hipp on Mon, 24 Oct 2016 14:17:37 -0400: > >> Yes, except that Andy broken the build while we were in the quiet >> period leading up to the 1.36 release and I failed to notice the >> problem. > > My

Re: [fossil-users] windows compiling with MS VC

Thus said Richard Hipp on Mon, 24 Oct 2016 14:17:37 -0400: > Yes, except that Andy broken the build while we were in the quiet > period leading up to the 1.36 release and I failed to notice the > problem. My apologies. Such an obvious C89 problem too, I'm not sure why I didn't even

Re: [fossil-users] windows compiling with MS VC

On 10/24/16, jungle Boogie wrote: > > So did you patch prior to making the Windows build and that's how you > have Windows binary? The binary for 1.36 is built using mingw+msys. -- D. Richard Hipp d...@sqlite.org ___

Re: [fossil-users] remote check in

Thus said Scott Doctor on Mon, 24 Oct 2016 10:33:08 -0700: > Regarding my command line comment. Originally I misinterpreted how > fossil works. Thank you for being candid about what made your misunderstand how Fossil actually works. This is valuable information: > The documentation needs

Re: [fossil-users] windows compiling with MS VC

On 24 October 2016 at 11:17, Richard Hipp wrote: > On 10/24/16, jungle Boogie wrote: >> Hi All, >> >> So I installed Microsoft Visual Studio and within that toolkit, I need >> to use VC to build the fossil.exe file, right? > > Yes, except that Andy

Re: [fossil-users] windows compiling with MS VC

On 10/24/16, jungle Boogie wrote: > Hi All, > > So I installed Microsoft Visual Studio and within that toolkit, I need > to use VC to build the fossil.exe file, right? Yes, except that Andy broken the build while we were in the quiet period leading up to the 1.36 release

[fossil-users] windows compiling with MS VC

Hi All, So I installed Microsoft Visual Studio and within that toolkit, I need to use VC to build the fossil.exe file, right? https://www.fossil-scm.org/index.html/doc/trunk/BUILD.txt Do that against the 1.36 source, I get this: cl /c /nologo /MT /O2 /I. /I..\src /I..\win\include

Re: [fossil-users] remote check in

Just to clear up some confusion. The issues I initially had with fossil were due to a misunderstanding about how fossil works. An issue is that clicking the help button in the fossil UI gives a wall of commands. That is fine if you already understand the concept of the base operations and just

Re: [fossil-users] features I'd like to have in fossil

On Oct 22, 2016, at 5:55 PM, K. Fossil user wrote: > > >« Branches in Fossil are just auto-propagating tags » > This is what they've said, technically at least. > For me this is not how I want it to be, because for most people tags are not > branches Be

Re: [fossil-users] Why we should NEVER use inetd/xinetd

On Oct 22, 2016, at 3:23 PM, K. Fossil user wrote: > > 1/ As I've stated in the past according to people I do know, for security > reason, inetd/xinetd is not recommended. I just did a search for inetd at the NVD CVE search, and got nothing relevant to

Re: [fossil-users] features I'd like to have in fossil

Hi, On 10/22/2016 12:27 AM, Nikita Borodikhin wrote: == relative revisions - history analysis == In Fossil there is no way to refer to a parent of a revision, with the exception the parent of checked out revision. Can you give examples of why you’d need to do this? I mean, what’s wrong