Re: [fossil-users] Fossil 2.1 beta. Was: Progress report of Fossil 2.x

Ah ? really ? 1/ I am one of the guys who talks about security here. I am not the first one.SHA1 was one of the discuss... 2/ I am one of the first guy who give many examples of good way to use a specific hash algorithm... (when you use command line) If honesty occur here, kudos should go to us

Re: [fossil-users] Fossil 2.1 beta. Was: Progress report of Fossil 2.x

On Mar 5, 2017, at 5:01 PM, Richard Hipp wrote: > The big change is that now Fossil will actually generate SHA3-256 > hashes for new artifacts, if you ask it to, or by default in new > repositories. See > https://www.fossil-scm.org/fossil/doc/trunk/www/hashpolicy.wiki for >

Re: [fossil-users] Fossil Version 2.1 (prerelease)

DRH question is strange in fact ... Not everyone would go for a Fossil 2.0 just because their repo ARE SHA1. Not to mention that, some providers won't move immediately when a stable release will come. I've said it in the past : a command line with option such as --sha1 --sha256 and so on is

[fossil-users] Fossil 2.1 beta. Was: Progress report of Fossil 2.x

The code on trunk (https://www.fossil-scm.org/fossil/timeline?y=ci=trunk) beta for Fossil 2.1. Please try it out and report any changes or issues. The big change is that now Fossil will actually generate SHA3-256 hashes for new artifacts, if you ask it to, or by default in new repositories.

Re: [fossil-users] spam after posting to the list

On Sunday, 5 Mar 2017 7:59 AM -0500, Saša Janiška wrote: > Hello, > > my last post to the list has triggered 7 *different* spam messages to my > INBOX from the *same* author, so wonder if there is something which can > be done against it, iow. I wonder if the situation is same whether one >

Re: [fossil-users] spam after posting to the list

On 3/5/17, Saša Janiška wrote: > Hello, > > my last post to the list has triggered 7 *different* spam messages to my > INBOX from the *same* author, so wonder if there is something which can > be done against it, iow. I wonder if the situation is same whether one > posts via

Re: [fossil-users] Fossil Version 2.1 (prerelease)

On Mar 5, 2017, at 10:15 AM, Richard Hipp wrote: > On 3/5/17, Lonnie Abelbeck wrote: >> For what is planned for Fossil 2.1, will new repos created using 2.1 using: >> -- >> fossil init --sha1 repo.fossil >> -- >> be compatible with recent Fossil 1.x

Re: [fossil-users] Fossil Version 2.1 (prerelease)

On 3/5/17, Lonnie Abelbeck wrote: > For what is planned for Fossil 2.1, will new repos created using 2.1 using: > -- > fossil init --sha1 repo.fossil > -- > be compatible with recent Fossil 1.x versions ? Yes. But why would you want to do that? Fossil 2.0 is out and

[fossil-users] Fossil Version 2.1 (prerelease)

For what is planned for Fossil 2.1, will new repos created using 2.1 using: -- fossil init --sha1 repo.fossil -- be compatible with recent Fossil 1.x versions ? Ref: Add the --sha1 option to the "fossil new" command, to simplify the creation of new SHA1-only repositories.

[fossil-users] spam after posting to the list

Hello, my last post to the list has triggered 7 *different* spam messages to my INBOX from the *same* author, so wonder if there is something which can be done against it, iow. I wonder if the situation is same whether one posts via Gmane (as I do) or directly to the mailing list? I experience

[fossil-users] comment on 6429054f8ef073b6 commit

Hello, when checking Fossil’s timeline on the web I noticed the 6429054f8ef073b6 commit with the following content: “The first distributed version control system (as far as this author knows) was [http://www.monotone.ca|Monotone]. Many of the ideas behind the design of Fossil were copied from