[fossil-users] openssl 1.1 compatibility issue in http_ssl.c

2017-03-13 Thread Eduard
Hi, When upgrading to openssl 1.1, I noticed that repositories fail to sync with "SSL: cannot connect to host hydra.ecd.space:443 (unsupported ip family)". I found a Debian bug describing this issue[1], and Sergei Golovan released a fix (see patch at bottom of their message in [1]). [1]

Re: [fossil-users] Old fossil (1.29) accessing current fossil trunk?

2017-03-13 Thread Ross Berteig
On 3/13/2017 8:57 AM, Richard Hipp wrote: On 3/13/17, Stefan Bellon wrote: When upgrading from 1.24 to 1.29 years ago, the output of "fossil annotate" changed and broke all our scripts (and even some customer databases). I expect even more incompatibilities when switching

Re: [fossil-users] Fossil 2.1 upgrade path

2017-03-13 Thread Richard Hipp
On 3/13/17, Ross Berteig wrote: > > So to move an existing project to the latest fossil after an SHA3-named > artifact exists, it appears to be necessary to rebuild existing repos > with version 2.0 or later so the database schema don't include a > constraint that forbids

Re: [fossil-users] Fossil 2.1 upgrade path

2017-03-13 Thread Ross Berteig
On 3/12/2017 10:50 AM, Richard Hipp wrote: On 3/12/17, Piotr Orzechowski wrote: Can I jump directly from 1.37 to 2.1? Yes. Simply download and install 2.1 and you are done. Optional seconds step: Type "fossil hash-policy sha3" in a check-out directory of any

Re: [fossil-users] Support for commonmark markdown in fossil

2017-03-13 Thread Warren Young
On Mar 13, 2017, at 12:57 PM, Martin S. Weber wrote: > > On 03/13/17 19:00, Warren Young wrote: >> On Mar 13, 2017, at 10:32 AM, Natacha Porté wrote: >>> Or do you expect it to count parentheses and prevent you from ever >>> linking to a URL with

Re: [fossil-users] Support for commonmark markdown in fossil

2017-03-13 Thread David Vines
On 13/03/2017 15:50, Warren Young wrote: A related wish that comes up here now and then is some kind of pretty-printer support, so that common programming languages are colored nicely. Google’s code-prettify JS library would work for this: https://github.com/google/code-prettify

Re: [fossil-users] Support for commonmark markdown in fossil

2017-03-13 Thread Martin S. Weber
On 03/13/17 19:00, Warren Young wrote: On Mar 13, 2017, at 10:32 AM, Natacha Porté wrote: Or do you expect it to count parentheses and prevent you from ever linking to a URL with unbalanced parentheses? Yes. Other Markdown processors do that. It doesn't necessarily

Re: [fossil-users] Support for commonmark markdown in fossil

2017-03-13 Thread Warren Young
On Mar 13, 2017, at 10:32 AM, Natacha Porté wrote: > > on Monday 13 March 2017 at 09:50, Warren Young wrote: >> I have found bugs in Fossil’s Markdown implementation. For example, it >> doesn’t deal properly with hyperlinks to Wikipedia documents that end in a >>

Re: [fossil-users] Support for commonmark markdown in fossil

2017-03-13 Thread Natacha Porté
Hello, on Monday 13 March 2017 at 09:50, Warren Young wrote: > I have found bugs in Fossil’s Markdown implementation. For example, it > doesn’t deal properly with hyperlinks to Wikipedia documents that end in a > parenthesis, as when the Wikipedia topic needs disambiguation: > >I like

Re: [fossil-users] Old fossil (1.29) accessing current fossil trunk?

2017-03-13 Thread Richard Hipp
On 3/13/17, Stefan Bellon wrote: > > When upgrading from 1.24 to 1.29 years ago, the output of "fossil > annotate" changed and broke all our scripts (and even some customer > databases). > > I expect even more incompatibilities when switching from 1.29 to 2.0 > and therefore

Re: [fossil-users] Support for commonmark markdown in fossil

2017-03-13 Thread Warren Young
On Mar 11, 2017, at 7:07 AM, Mark Janssen wrote: > > the fossil markdown support is fairly limited (for example there are no code > blocks) We must have different definitions of “code block.” This is a Fossil wiki page with a very large code block down at the end:

Re: [fossil-users] Old fossil (1.29) accessing current fossil trunk?

2017-03-13 Thread Stefan Bellon
Sadly it is not that simple. When upgrading from 1.24 to 1.29 years ago, the output of "fossil annotate" changed and broke all our scripts (and even some customer databases). I expect even more incompatibilities when switching from 1.29 to 2.0 and therefore this is nothing that can be done in a

Re: [fossil-users] Old fossil (1.29) accessing current fossil trunk?

2017-03-13 Thread Richard Hipp
On 3/13/17, Stefan Bellon wrote: > > Is this (old) version not able to work with current trunk anymore? Do > we have to upgrade to 2.0 or 2.1? > Correct. As of check-in https://www.fossil-scm.org/fossil/info/7815d015f3b5a663 (2017-03-10) the self-hosting Fossil repository

[fossil-users] Old fossil (1.29) accessing current fossil trunk?

2017-03-13 Thread Stefan Bellon
Hi all, recently when updating our fossil trunk workspace with an old copy of fossil (1.29) we are getting error messages as follows: $ fossil version This is fossil version 1.29 [3e5ebe2b90] 2014-06-12 17:25:56 UTC $ fossil update Autosync: http://www.fossil-scm.org/ Round-trips: 1 Artifacts