On Sat, Mar 3, 2012 at 2:54 AM, Leo Razoumov slonik...@gmail.com wrote:
Actually you can make JSON handle arbitrary binary blobs by encoding
binary data in e.g. base64.
The other end can easily decode it back to binary. It will cost you
about 33% in size overhead, though.
It can, but then
On Wed, 29 Feb 2012 18:32:19 -0800
Brian Smith br...@linuxfood.net wrote:
Hello Brian,
Here are some of the basic items that need feedback:
I've marked each question with an asterisk (*) so that you can find
my questions easier.
Let me say that, in general, I'd happy having same workflow as
On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 12:04 AM, Brian Smith br...@linuxfood.net wrote:
On Thursday, March 1, 2012 at 3:18 AM, Leo Razoumov wrote:
As a next step, I hope, one can augment limsync with a json API so
that power users can do more complex things.
I'm not sure what this would imply. The JSON
On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 03:50, Stephan Beal sgb...@googlemail.com wrote:
FYI: the JSON API doesn't aim to handle functionality which works directly
with a checkout, e.g. checkout, commit, pull, push, update. It's main aim is
to provide more or less the same data needed for implementing
On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 12:25 PM, Leo Razoumov slonik...@gmail.com wrote:
Correct me if I am wrong, but I think that JSON API can be used to
construct a list of artifacts in some non-trivial way.
It can be used to output/collect almost anything the fossil internals can
provide it (notable
On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 03:50, Stephan Beal sgb...@googlemail.com wrote:
Correct - i don't think we'll be able to do that kind of feature in JSON,
largely because JSON doesn't do binary. The closest thing to commit i
think we'll be able to portably/sensibly pull off is handling embedded docs
Brian,
for simplicity you might want to follow the selection rules that
already exist in fossil web-interface.
When I go to the web-interface=Branches and select a branch I am
presented with a partial view of the DAG that fossil thinks is
relevant to the branch I chose. For the sake of consistency
On Thu, Mar 1, 2012 at 6:18 AM, Leo Razoumov slonik...@gmail.com wrote:
Brian,
for simplicity you might want to follow the selection rules that
already exist in fossil web-interface.
When I go to the web-interface=Branches and select a branch I am
presented with a partial view of the DAG
On Thu, Mar 1, 2012 at 09:16, Richard Hipp d...@sqlite.org wrote:
On Thu, Mar 1, 2012 at 6:18 AM, Leo Razoumov slonik...@gmail.com wrote:
Brian,
for simplicity you might want to follow the selection rules that
already exist in fossil web-interface.
When I go to the web-interface=Branches and
On Thu, Mar 1, 2012 at 9:30 AM, Leo Razoumov slonik...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Mar 1, 2012 at 09:16, Richard Hipp d...@sqlite.org wrote:
On Thu, Mar 1, 2012 at 6:18 AM, Leo Razoumov slonik...@gmail.com
wrote:
Brian,
for simplicity you might want to follow the selection rules that
On Thursday, March 1, 2012 at 3:18 AM, Leo Razoumov wrote:
Brian,
for simplicity you might want to follow the selection rules that
already exist in fossil web-interface.
When I go to the web-interface=Branches and select a branch I am
presented with a partial view of the DAG that fossil
On Thu, Mar 1, 2012 at 18:04, Brian Smith br...@linuxfood.net wrote:
On Thursday, March 1, 2012 at 3:18 AM, Leo Razoumov wrote:
Brian,
for simplicity you might want to follow the selection rules that
already exist in fossil web-interface.
When I go to the web-interface=Branches and select a
Hi,
Sorry for my radio silence over the weekend.
I have to say, I'm a tad caught off guard by the sudden enthusiasm for this
feature!
Anyway, what I need most is community feedback on some open questions.
You can find most of my open questions in the fossil-dev archives.
(Unfortunately, it
Hello again,
Ok, so, it's not quite afternoon, but, it's still the same day.
Here are some of the basic items that need feedback:
I've marked each question with an asterisk (*) so that you can find my
questions easier.
Scenario:
You're pulling a specific branch (topic1) that other developers
Hi List,
I am trying to accomplish a cascading work-flow Personal.fossil -
Team.fossil - Public.fossil without history rewriting.
Right now fossil has concept of private branches that are tagged
with private. Those branches are pushed/pulled only in presence of
--private option. Everything else
On Sat, Feb 25, 2012 at 01:33:45PM -0500, Leo Razoumov wrote:
Hi List,
I am trying to accomplish a cascading work-flow Personal.fossil -
Team.fossil - Public.fossil without history rewriting.
I would like to entertain an idea of adding explicit public tag
which will propagate in a way
Why not just productize limsync?
- Original Message -
From: Leo Razoumov
Sent: 02/26/12 03:03 AM
To: Fossil SCM user's discussion
Subject: Re: [fossil-users] feature proposal: explicitly public branches
On Sat, Feb 25, 2012 at 16:29, Christopher Berardi cbera...@natoufa.com
On 02/26/12 03:09, altufa...@mail.com wrote:
Why not just productize limsync?
Going by what Brian Smith has written, it's a question of having time
do work on it and handling a few special cases.
Brian, if you need any kind of assistance, please let us know. I
really want this feature.
On Sat, Feb 25, 2012 at 21:30, Jan Danielsson
jan.m.daniels...@gmail.com wrote:
On 02/26/12 03:09, altufa...@mail.com wrote:
Why not just productize limsync?
Going by what Brian Smith has written, it's a question of having time
do work on it and handling a few special cases.
Brian, if
19 matches
Mail list logo
