Re: [fossil-users] 64 bit rowid bug?

2013-06-21 Thread Jan Nijtmans
But i'm just being technically pedantic, so don't take all that too seriously. i see nothing wrong with using sqlite3_int64 everywhere, to be honest, and wouldn't mind adding a patch to the upstream JSON bits which use sqlite3_int64 when compiling for fossil (they already have one such place so

Re: [fossil-users] Ticket [967cedbf20]: fossil extra - Report for subtree

2013-06-21 Thread Jan Nijtmans
2013/6/20 Stephan Beal sgb...@googlemail.com: Any chance of adding the same to ls as well? Hm.. $ ./fossil ls win/include win/include/dirent.h win/include/unistd.h $ rm -rf win/include;fossil status MISSINGwin/include/dirent.h MISSINGwin/include/unistd.h $ ./fossil ls win/include

Re: [fossil-users] Ticket [967cedbf20]: fossil extra - Report for subtree

2013-06-21 Thread j. van den hoff
just a thought: a somehow related feature would be the ability to do something like fossil ci {dirname} where {dirname} is one of the directories found in the checkout which then should restrict the ci to everything recursively found in {dirname} and below. personally I don't miss such a

Re: [fossil-users] Ticket [967cedbf20]: fossil extra - Report for subtree

2013-06-21 Thread Jan Nijtmans
2013/6/21 j. van den hoff veedeeh...@googlemail.com: just a thought: a somehow related feature would be the ability to do something like fossil ci {dirname} Yes, that would be consistant with fossil clean|extras|ls to allow that, but it's not completely trivial. The query that should be

Re: [fossil-users] Ticket [967cedbf20]: fossil extra - Report for subtree

2013-06-21 Thread Stephan Beal
On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 3:43 PM, Jan Nijtmans jan.nijtm...@gmail.comwrote: That will no longer be true.. Richard can do that in 5 minutes, but for everyone else it will take much longer ;-) i'll bet 5 Euros that he could do it in THREE minutes ;) -- - stephan beal

Re: [fossil-users] Ticket [967cedbf20]: fossil extra - Report for subtree

2013-06-21 Thread Richard Hipp
On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 9:54 AM, Stephan Beal sgb...@googlemail.com wrote: On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 3:43 PM, Jan Nijtmans jan.nijtm...@gmail.comwrote: That will no longer be true.. Richard can do that in 5 minutes, but for everyone else it will take much longer ;-) i'll bet 5 Euros

Re: [fossil-users] Ticket [967cedbf20]: fossil extra - Report for subtree

2013-06-21 Thread Stephan Beal
On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 3:57 PM, Richard Hipp d...@sqlite.org wrote: I've already been working on the problem for 10 minutes. Okay, we'll take your word for it! ;) I think that means you owe me a weissbier the next time I'm in München! Duly noted! -- - stephan beal

Re: [fossil-users] Ticket [967cedbf20]: fossil extra - Report for subtree

2013-06-21 Thread Jan Nijtmans
2013/6/21 Stephan Beal sgb...@googlemail.com: On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 3:57 PM, Richard Hipp d...@sqlite.org wrote: I've already been working on the problem for 10 minutes. Implemented fossil changes and fossil status now, which is much simpler. It took me 25 minutes Regards, Jan

[fossil-users] RFC: new config option

2013-06-21 Thread Stephan Beal
Hiho, In a repo of mine (not fossil) i just made a commit faux pas by not entering the _one_ filename i wanted on the command line, and instead committing several others i wasn't ready to commit. So now i want to add a fossil feature but thought i'd run it through the crowd for opinions or

Re: [fossil-users] RFC: new config option

2013-06-21 Thread B Harder
On Jun 21, 2013 9:32 AM, Stephan Beal sgb...@googlemail.com wrote: Hiho, In a repo of mine (not fossil) i just made a commit faux pas by not entering the _one_ filename i wanted on the command line, and instead committing several others i wasn't ready to commit. So now i want to add a fossil

Re: [fossil-users] RFC: new config option

2013-06-21 Thread Richard Hipp
On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 1:35 PM, B Harder brad.har...@gmail.com wrote: I realize this check is early in the commit phase, but now I wonder: barring pushed/autosync'd content, can one pop or unwind the last commit of a local repo? An uncommit command has been on the to-do list for a long

Re: [fossil-users] RFC: new config option

2013-06-21 Thread B Harder
On Jun 21, 2013 11:02 AM, Richard Hipp d...@sqlite.org wrote: On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 1:35 PM, B Harder brad.har...@gmail.com wrote: I realize this check is early in the commit phase, but now I wonder: barring pushed/autosync'd content, can one pop or unwind the last commit of a local repo?

Re: [fossil-users] RFC: new config option

2013-06-21 Thread Stephan Beal
On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 8:01 PM, Richard Hipp d...@sqlite.org wrote: An uncommit command has been on the to-do list for a long time, but has not yet been implemented. And i've only missed it once or twice - i know this is a corner case and impossible when syncing is on. Note that uncommit

Re: [fossil-users] RFC: new config option

2013-06-21 Thread Edward Berner
On 6/21/2013 9:32 AM, Stephan Beal wrote: Hiho, In a repo of mine (not fossil) i just made a commit faux pas by not entering the _one_ filename i wanted on the command line, and instead committing several others i wasn't ready to commit. So now i want to add a fossil feature but thought i'd

Re: [fossil-users] RFC: new config option

2013-06-21 Thread Stephan Beal
On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 9:42 PM, Edward Berner e...@bernerfam.com wrote: But... what about per-user script hooks? This would certainly be a perfect use case for them. i can't speak to the security concerns. On a related note, there is a precedence for such an option: mysql client does not

Re: [fossil-users] cloning / opening fails on WinXP SP3

2013-06-21 Thread Edward Berner
On 6/19/2013 1:25 AM, Edward Berner wrote: On 6/18/2013 7:56 PM, Richard Hipp wrote: On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 10:52 PM, Edward Berner e...@bernerfam.com mailto:e...@bernerfam.com wrote: I was able to reproduce a similar behavior, and I think it has to do with the size of those

Re: [fossil-users] cloning / opening fails on WinXP SP3

2013-06-21 Thread Edward Berner
On 6/21/2013 3:29 PM, Edward Berner wrote: I think I figured out part of the problem. Way down in http_socket.c, there is no error handling in socket_receive() and socket_send(). In socket_receive(), I'm seeing a -1 return from recv(), and WSAGetLastError() returns 10055 which is

Re: [fossil-users] cloning / opening fails on WinXP SP3

2013-06-21 Thread Richard Hipp
On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 9:25 PM, Edward Berner e...@bernerfam.com wrote: I think recv() was biting off more than it could chew. Here is the workaround: while( N0 ){ -got = recv(iSocket, pContent, N, 0); +got = recv(iSocket, pContent, N20 ? 20 : N, 0); if( got=0 )