On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 1:31 AM, Miles Fidelman
mfidel...@meetinghouse.netwrote:
Yes, but for collaborative document writing, something more like a full
wiki, is just that much nicer. So close, but...
Can't have everything, I guess.
If you haven't tried Google Docs, give it a try and
On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 10:58:04AM -0400, Richard Hipp wrote:
On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 10:41 AM, Andy Bradford
amb-fos...@bradfords.orgwrote:
When I first learned about fossil and the integrated tickets/wiki, I
assumed that both of these features were also version controlled just
Lluís Batlle i Rossell wrote:
On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 10:58:04AM -0400, Richard Hipp wrote:
On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 10:41 AM, Andy Bradford amb-fos...@bradfords.orgwrote:
When I first learned about fossil and the integrated tickets/wiki, I
assumed that both of these features were also
Thus said Miles Fidelman on Mon, 13 May 2013 16:09:30 -0400:
I also wonder if it effected the choice of whether to use fossil or
not for various projects. I know that, personally, there are a few
places that I've wanted to START with versioned documentation, and
would have
On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 4:43 PM, Andy Bradford amb-fos...@bradfords.orgwrote:
Thus said Miles Fidelman on Mon, 13 May 2013 16:09:30 -0400:
I also wonder if it effected the choice of whether to use fossil or
not for various projects. I know that, personally, there are a few
places
Richard Hipp wrote:
On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 4:43 PM, Andy Bradford
amb-fos...@bradfords.org mailto:amb-fos...@bradfords.org wrote:
Thus said Miles Fidelman on Mon, 13 May 2013 16:09:30 -0400:
I also wonder if it effected the choice of whether to use
fossil or
not for
Hello Fossil-Users,
I have a question regarding the wiki-functionality of a fossil-repository.
Our current setup we use to have a subsequent repository for our sub-team in a greater process, consists of one basic backbone-repository, wich is permanently syncec (5 minutes) with two
On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 12:28 PM, Lluís Batlle i Rossell vi...@viric.namewrote:
One thing is not be able to merge; the other is losing information
silently.
Very annoying.
It's not lost, per se, but it is (annoyingly) hidden in that case. The main
www UI doesn't (AFAIR) offer any features for
On Wed, May 08, 2013 at 01:01:42PM +0200, Stephan Beal wrote:
On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 12:56 PM, Lluís Batlle i Rossell
vi...@viric.namewrote:
In fact, I don't see why most VCS tend (somehow propose) to *not commit*
merge
conflicts before solving the conflicts. That makes the conflict
On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 6:56 AM, Lluís Batlle i Rossell vi...@viric.namewrote:
I don't see why most VCS tend (somehow propose) to *not commit* merge
conflicts before solving the conflicts. That makes the conflict solution
'disappear' from the timeline.
One reason: Having non-working code in
On Wed, May 08, 2013 at 07:28:59AM -0400, Richard Hipp wrote:
On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 6:56 AM, Lluís Batlle i Rossell
vi...@viric.namewrote:
I don't see why most VCS tend (somehow propose) to *not commit* merge
conflicts before solving the conflicts. That makes the conflict solution
11 matches
Mail list logo
