A lot of people allow wiki append by anonymous on their repos. You may choose
not to. Maybe PR should get its own capability so you may restrict to
authenticated or particular users (or not).
On June 18, 2018 8:39:59 AM EDT, Karel Gardas wrote:
>On Mon, 18 Jun 2018 00:01:33 +0300
>John Found
On Mon, 18 Jun 2018 00:01:33 +0300
John Found wrote:
> > Please no, this would be real security nightmare. Anyone can attack any
> > fossil public repo then by simple DoS. Do not ever allow anonymous to play
> > with your pristine repository! If anon needs to "push" something, then
> > he/she
On Sun, 17 Jun 2018 20:49:25 +0200
Karel Gardas wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Jun 2018 13:35:13 -0400
> Richard Hipp wrote:
>
> > An alternative design sketch:
> >
> > (1) Anonymous clones repo CoolApp
> >
> > (2) Anonymous makes changes to CoolApp and checks those changes into a
> > branch named
On Fri, 15 Jun 2018 13:35:13 -0400
Richard Hipp wrote:
> An alternative design sketch:
>
> (1) Anonymous clones repo CoolApp
>
> (2) Anonymous makes changes to CoolApp and checks those changes into a
> branch named "anon-patch" on her private clone. Repeat this step as
> necessary to get
On Sun, 17 Jun 2018 04:06:50 +
Chad Perrin wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 16, 2018 at 05:05:48PM +0200, Eduardo Morras wrote:
> >
> > I partially disagree. If you allow anonymous people to pull /
> > commit / merge data to your 'central repository', you can get
> > easily spammed. If I pull-request
Le 16/06/2018 à 17:05, Eduardo Morras a écrit :
I partially disagree. If you allow anonymous people to pull / commit /
merge data to your 'central repository', you can get easily spammed. If
I pull-request 100 images of 10MB your system will go down. Multiply it
by several 'funny guys' on more
On Sat, Jun 16, 2018 at 05:05:48PM +0200, Eduardo Morras wrote:
>
> I partially disagree. If you allow anonymous people to pull / commit /
> merge data to your 'central repository', you can get easily spammed.
> If I pull-request 100 images of 10MB your system will go down.
> Multiply it by
On Fri, Jun 15, 2018 at 04:39:20PM -0400, Richard Hipp wrote:
> On 6/15/18, Chad Perrin wrote:
> >
> > This would not technically be a "pull request". It would be a "merge
> > request".
>
> Good point. It should not be called "pull-request" as pulling does
> not come into play.
>
> On the
On Fri, 15 Jun 2018 13:35:13 -0400
Richard Hipp wrote:
> On 6/15/18, David Mason wrote:
> > I heartily agree with this... A flag to allow a person (including
> > Anonymous) to make a commit that would automatically go into a new
> > branch like "Patch-1" (each one incrementing the branch
fossil submit
Steve
On 16 Jun 2018, 9:30 PM +0800, Tony Papadimitriou , wrote:
> -Original Message-
> From: Richard Hipp
>
> > Other ideas for what to name this (hypothetical and unimplemented) command:
> >
> > fossil contribute
> > fossil bequest
> > fossil bestow
> > fossil proffer
>
>
-Original Message-
From: Richard Hipp
Other ideas for what to name this (hypothetical and unimplemented) command:
fossil contribute
fossil bequest
fossil bestow
fossil proffer
Some more ideas (in random order):
fossil chip-in (shortest possible is ch)
fossil enqueue
Le 15/06/2018 à 22:55, John Found a écrit :
On Fri, 15 Jun 2018 16:44:55 -0400
Richard Hipp wrote:
Other ideas for what to name this (hypothetical and unimplemented) command:
fossil contribute
fossil bequest
fossil bestow
fossil proffer
fossil propose
fossil
Yup! Looks good. (I read the whole thread, but this seemed like best
message to which to reply. I think Jungle-Boogie's comment about being able
to accept directly from the UI for things like text updates would be
great... but it could be added later.)
Will need a bit of documentation to help
On Fri, 15 Jun 2018 16:44:55 -0400
Richard Hipp wrote:
> Other ideas for what to name this (hypothetical and unimplemented) command:
>
>fossil contribute
>fossil bequest
>fossil bestow
>fossil proffer
>
fossil propose
--
http://fresh.flatassembler.net
http://asm32.info
John
On 6/15/18, Richard Hipp wrote:
> On 6/15/18, Chad Perrin wrote:
>>
>> This would not technically be a "pull request". It would be a "merge
>> request".
>
> Good point. It should not be called "pull-request" as pulling does
> not come into play.
>
> On the other hand, it is not necessary a
On 6/15/18, Chad Perrin wrote:
>
> This would not technically be a "pull request". It would be a "merge
> request".
Good point. It should not be called "pull-request" as pulling does
not come into play.
On the other hand, it is not necessary a request to merge. Often a
merge is implied, but
It looks good to me.
Actually, implementation details doesn’t really matter as long as it’s
easy to contributors to push a “pull-request” (however we call it), easy
for admins to check it (being able to do it also via the UI would be
very nice) and accept or refuse it, and if it doesn’t make
On Fri, Jun 15, 2018 at 01:35:13PM -0400, Richard Hipp wrote:
>
> An alternative design sketch:
>
> (1) Anonymous clones repo CoolApp
>
> (2) Anonymous makes changes to CoolApp and checks those changes into a
> branch named "anon-patch" on her private clone. Repeat this step as
> necessary to
On Fri, Jun 15, 2018 at 12:55:34AM +0100, Thomas wrote:
> On 2018-06-15 00:32, Chad Perrin wrote:
> >> Pull requests are not supported, hence the software can't be used for
> >> community driven open source.
> >
> > The pull request interface on GitHub is a feature of GitHub, not of Git.
> >
On Fri, Jun 15, 2018 at 09:27:31PM +0200, Nicola Vitacolonna wrote:
> On 15/06/2018 01:32, Chad Perrin wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 14, 2018 at 09:59:12PM +0100, Thomas wrote:
> >>
> >> Pull requests are not supported, hence the software can't be used for
> >> community driven open source.
> >
> >
On 6/15/18, Nicola Vitacolonna wrote:
>> Git does have its own method (`git am`).
>
> Sorry, that should be `git request-pull`.
From the manpage, it appears that the "git request-pull" command is
less automatic than my proposed "fossil pullrequest" command. The
git-request-pull expects the
> Git does have its own method (`git am`).
Sorry, that should be `git request-pull`.
Nicola
___
fossil-users mailing list
fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org
http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
On 6/15/18, Ron W wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 15, 2018 at 2:58 PM,
>
> wrote:
>
>>
>> Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2018 13:35:13 -0400
>> From: Richard Hipp
>> Subject: Re: [fossil-users] Perception of Fossil
>>
>> An alternative design sketch:
>>
On 15/06/2018 01:32, Chad Perrin wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 14, 2018 at 09:59:12PM +0100, Thomas wrote:
>>
>> Pull requests are not supported, hence the software can't be used for
>> community driven open source.
>
> The pull request interface on GitHub is a feature of GitHub, not of Git.
> While
On Fri, Jun 15, 2018 at 2:58 PM,
wrote:
>
> Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2018 13:35:13 -0400
> From: Richard Hipp
> Subject: Re: [fossil-users] Perception of Fossil
>
> An alternative design sketch:
>
> (4) The pullrequest command creates a "bundle" out of the "
On 6/15/18, jungle Boogie wrote:
>
>> Additional notes:
>>
>> Prior to step (3), Fossil might require Anonymous to provide contact
>> information so that developers can get in touch in case there are
>> questions or requests for clarification. Anonymous might also be
>> asked to sign a
On Thu, Jun 14, 2018 at 08:17:47PM -0600, Warren Young wrote:
>
> Back when I proposed the feature set that became bundles, I proposed
> that it include a way for the outside contributor to create a ticket
> from a bundle, which would be pushed to the remote repository for
> disposition by
All very, very lovely thinking! I just have one comment/question...
On 15 June 2018 at 10:35, Richard Hipp wrote:
> On 6/15/18, David Mason wrote:
>> I heartily agree with this... A flag to allow a person (including
>> Anonymous) to make a commit that would automatically go into a new branch
>>
On 6/15/18, David Mason wrote:
> I heartily agree with this... A flag to allow a person (including
> Anonymous) to make a commit that would automatically go into a new branch
> like "Patch-1" (each one incrementing the branch number) is (a) better than
> emailed patches, and (b) better than pull
On Fri, 15 Jun 2018 15:23:42 +0200
"Olivier R." wrote:
> When someone clones the repo, make one or several commit(s), then push
> to the repo without having the right to change it, this commit could be
> queued somewhere (in a temporary branch maybe?), then the
> administrator(s) may apply it
I heartily agree with this... A flag to allow a person (including
Anonymous) to make a commit that would automatically go into a new branch
like "Patch-1" (each one incrementing the branch number) is (a) better than
emailed patches, and (b) better than pull requests. Primarily because it
puts it
Le 15/06/2018 à 01:32, Chad Perrin a écrit :
On Thu, Jun 14, 2018 at 09:59:12PM +0100, Thomas wrote:
Pull requests are not supported, hence the software can't be used for
community driven open source.
The pull request interface on GitHub is a feature of GitHub, not of Git.
While it would be
On Jun 14, 2018, at 5:50 PM, John P. Rouillard wrote:
>
> In message <20180614213758.ga7...@britannica.bec.de>,
> Joerg Sonnenberger writes:
>>
>>
>> How do I develop a patch locally and send it to someone for review?
>
> Would some combination of:
>
> bundle
>
> published via
>
> uv
On 6/14/18 4:59 PM, Thomas wrote:
Pull requests are not supported, hence the software can't be used for
community driven open source.
The Tcl/Tk project uses Fossil, and it's a rather large project with a
decent-sized community:
http://core.tcl.tk/tcl/wiki?name=Index
On 2018-06-15 00:32, Chad Perrin wrote:
Pull requests are not supported, hence the software can't be used for
community driven open source.
The pull request interface on GitHub is a feature of GitHub, not of Git.
While it would be nice to have a similar feature built into the Fossil
web UI,
On Thu, Jun 14, 2018 at 09:59:12PM +0100, Thomas wrote:
>
> Pull requests are not supported, hence the software can't be used for
> community driven open source.
The pull request interface on GitHub is a feature of GitHub, not of Git.
While it would be nice to have a similar feature built into
On Thu, Jun 14, 2018 at 11:04:18PM +0100, Thomas wrote:
>
> I forgot to mention that self-registration is something that comes along
> the same line. I haven't managed to get this working with Fossil yet either.
>
> As far as I can see until now you got to create an account for every
>
Hi all:
In message <20180614213758.ga7...@britannica.bec.de>,
Joerg Sonnenberger writes:
>On Thu, Jun 14, 2018 at 04:51:08PM -0400, Ron W wrote:
>> In another forum I follow,a commented claims that Fossil is designed for
>> "cathedral development" not "bazaar development", so would be of little
On 2018-06-14 23:19, Joerg Sonnenberger wrote:
Can you please just stop trolling? Everyone else, please ignore
"Thomas".
I wasn't aware that communism has taken over Germany or the US yet.
___
fossil-users mailing list
On 2018-06-14 23:09, Warren Young wrote:
On Jun 14, 2018, at 4:04 PM, Thomas wrote:
As far as I can see until now you got to create an account for every
contributor yourself.
I think that’s a feature in a web service that, currently, has no way to do
email verification. Else, spammers
On 2018-06-14 23:09, Warren Young wrote:
On Jun 14, 2018, at 4:04 PM, Thomas wrote:
As far as I can see until now you got to create an account for every
contributor yourself.
I think that’s a feature in a web service that, currently, has no way to do
email verification. Else, spammers
On Thu, Jun 14, 2018 at 10:44:24PM +0100, Thomas wrote:
> On 2018-06-14 22:37, Joerg Sonnenberger wrote:
> > How do I develop a patch locally and send it to someone for review? The
> > pull request model is kind of stupid and works only for a centralized
> > system (the irony...), but integration
On Jun 14, 2018, at 4:04 PM, Thomas wrote:
> As far as I can see until now you got to create an account for every
> contributor yourself.
I think that’s a feature in a web service that, currently, has no way to do
email verification. Else, spammers again.
One presumes that if Fossil gets a
On 2018-06-14 21:59, Thomas wrote:
On 2018-06-14 21:51, Ron W wrote:
In another forum I follow,a commented claims that Fossil is designed for
"cathedral development" not "bazaar development", so would be of little
interest to anyone. Unfortunately, the poster did not elaborate on why.
Except
On 2018-06-14 22:37, Joerg Sonnenberger wrote:
How do I develop a patch locally and send it to someone for review? The
pull request model is kind of stupid and works only for a centralized
system (the irony...), but integration of something like "patchbomb" or
even just bundles is quite handy
On Thu, Jun 14, 2018 at 04:51:08PM -0400, Ron W wrote:
> In another forum I follow,a commented claims that Fossil is designed for
> "cathedral development" not "bazaar development", so would be of little
> interest to anyone. Unfortunately, the poster did not elaborate on why.
>
> Except maybe
On Jun 14, 2018, at 2:51 PM, Ron W wrote:
>
> In another forum I follow,a commented claims that Fossil is designed for
> "cathedral development" not "bazaar development”
That’s the official stance, not some rand-o’s opinion:
https://fossil-scm.org/index.html/doc/trunk/www/fossil-v-git.wiki
On Thu, Jun 14, 2018 at 10:51 PM Ron W wrote:
> In another forum I follow,a commented claims that Fossil is designed for
> "cathedral development" not "bazaar development", so would be of little
> interest to anyone. Unfortunately, the poster did not elaborate on why.
>
Maybe he's just young
On 2018-06-14 21:51, Ron W wrote:
In another forum I follow,a commented claims that Fossil is designed for
"cathedral development" not "bazaar development", so would be of little
interest to anyone. Unfortunately, the poster did not elaborate on why.
Except maybe possible issues scaling to a
In another forum I follow,a commented claims that Fossil is designed for
"cathedral development" not "bazaar development", so would be of little
interest to anyone. Unfortunately, the poster did not elaborate on why.
Except maybe possible issues scaling to a large number of contributors, I
don't
50 matches
Mail list logo
