[fossil-users] Jump between branches

2015-03-04 Thread Paolo Bolzoni
Dear list, I have a project that contains a tex file about a paper and the relative C++ code. When I want to try some crazy idea I like to make a branch work in it and finally mergin in truck or closing depending how well it worked. But in this case I want also to continue to work on the paper

Re: [fossil-users] Justification for two-step mv and rm

2015-03-04 Thread Ramon Ribó
I think that both worlds can live together without any problem. - When doing fossil mv A B * If A exists and B does not exist in file system, rename file A to B * If B exists and A does not exist in file system, do nothing * If either both exist or none exists, warn and stop - When doing fossil

Re: [fossil-users] Jump between branches

2015-03-04 Thread Paolo Bolzoni
Works great, thanks! On Wed, Mar 4, 2015 at 6:18 PM, Richard Hipp d...@sqlite.org wrote: On 3/4/15, Paolo Bolzoni paolo.bolzoni.br...@gmail.com wrote: Dear list, I have a project that contains a tex file about a paper and the relative C++ code. When I want to try some crazy idea I like to

Re: [fossil-users] Justification for two-step mv and rm

2015-03-04 Thread paul
On 03/03/15 22:27, j. van den hoff wrote: On Tue, 03 Mar 2015 22:22:40 +0100, Richard Hipp d...@sqlite.org wrote: On 3/3/15, Warren Young w...@etr-usa.com wrote: Is there a good reason that “fossil mv” and “fossil rm” must be followed by OS-level mv and rm commands? I miss the behavior of

Re: [fossil-users] Jump between branches

2015-03-04 Thread Richard Hipp
On 3/4/15, Paolo Bolzoni paolo.bolzoni.br...@gmail.com wrote: Dear list, I have a project that contains a tex file about a paper and the relative C++ code. When I want to try some crazy idea I like to make a branch work in it and finally mergin in truck or closing depending how well it

Re: [fossil-users] Cannot set 'autosync' and fossil ignores http_proxy

2015-03-04 Thread Andy Bradford
Thus said Richard Hipp on Wed, 04 Mar 2015 08:13:23 -0500: 2) fossil ignores 'http_proxy' but honors 'proxy' settings if set manually strace shows that fossil hangs on sendto(-1, ...) I don't understand the problem statement here. And I don't have a proxy at hand for testing so I

Re: [fossil-users] Justification for two-step mv and rm

2015-03-04 Thread Martin Gagnon
On Wed, Mar 04, 2015 at 06:33:07PM +0100, Ramon Ribó wrote: I think that both worlds can live together without any problem. - When doing fossil mv A B * If A exists and B does not exist in file system, rename file A to B * If B exists and A does not exist in file system, do nothing * If

Re: [fossil-users] Justification for two-step mv and rm

2015-03-04 Thread bch
What you're describing here is the crux of the problem, and I think can be fairly described as separation of concerns -- the domain of the version control is it's controlled files, and if a file is not handled by version control, (ie: fossil rm somefile), should fossil be reaching outside of its

Re: [fossil-users] Forcing a MIME type for a file download

2015-03-04 Thread David Given
On 04/03/15 00:56, Richard Hipp wrote: [...] Try this: /doc/trunk/README?mimetype=text/plain That's awesome --- thanks! -- ┌─── dg@cowlark.com ─ http://www.cowlark.com ─ │ │ Sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from │ malice. -- Vernon Schryver signature.asc

Re: [fossil-users] Justification for two-step mv and rm

2015-03-04 Thread Warren Young
On Mar 3, 2015, at 2:22 PM, Richard Hipp d...@sqlite.org wrote: On 3/3/15, Warren Young w...@etr-usa.com wrote: Is there a good reason that “fossil mv” and “fossil rm” must be followed by OS-level mv and rm commands? I miss the behavior of Subversion which made these into a single step.

Re: [fossil-users] Justification for two-step mv and rm

2015-03-04 Thread Warren Young
On Mar 4, 2015, at 10:24 AM, paul pault.eg...@gmail.com wrote: If fossil mv also moves files on a filesystem, I'd be happy with that, so long as I can still use a file browser as I'm doing now. All other VCSes I’ve used that do one-step mv [*] cope with this case transparently. They see

Re: [fossil-users] Justification for two-step mv and rm

2015-03-04 Thread Warren Young
On Mar 4, 2015, at 1:52 PM, Martin Gagnon eme...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Mar 04, 2015 at 06:33:07PM +0100, Ramon Ribó wrote: - When doing fossil rm A * If A exists in file system, delete file A This is another story. Sometimes, I just want to remove file from revision control This is

Re: [fossil-users] Justification for two-step mv and rm

2015-03-04 Thread bch
Before you reject the idea of one-step rm totally Oh, to be clear, I'm presenting this as a thought exercise. Many filesystems and OSes combine file versioning and file management Sure, but: fossil is distinct from the filesystems. DOS, extn, ffs, etc., etc., etc are not versioning/managment

Re: [fossil-users] fossil bundle import --publish ignored

2015-03-04 Thread Warren Young
On Mar 3, 2015, at 4:49 PM, Richard Hipp d...@sqlite.org wrote: just run the fossil publish” command Ah, I didn’t see that. I do see that the help for some commands point to other related commands. I propose adding: See also: publish to “help bundle”.

[fossil-users] Chiselapp isn't responding

2015-03-04 Thread Ross Berteig
I just tried to autosync with a repo I keep on chiselapp.com, and it failed. I tried http://www.downforeveryoneorjustme.com/chiselapp.com and it reports that http://chiselapp.com/ is not responding, so it clearly isn't *just* my ISP messing with me. I'm not sure who is maintaining it

Re: [fossil-users] Justification for two-step mv and rm

2015-03-04 Thread Warren Young
On Mar 4, 2015, at 3:27 PM, bch brad.har...@gmail.com wrote: Before you reject the idea of one-step rm totally Oh, to be clear, I'm presenting this as a thought exercise. If that’s all this is, we can send it to the philosophy department and move on to other topics. Personally, I thought

Re: [fossil-users] Justification for two-step mv and rm

2015-03-04 Thread Warren Young
On Mar 4, 2015, at 4:50 PM, Ross Berteig r...@cheshireeng.com wrote: It has always bothered me that the command that reverses 'add' is ‘rm' You can get the same effect without making yourself nervous with “fossil revert”. This matches the behavior of Mercurial, Subversion, and Bazaar. hg

Re: [fossil-users] Justification for two-step mv and rm

2015-03-04 Thread Warren Young
On Mar 4, 2015, at 5:28 PM, Francis Daly fran...@daoine.org wrote: On Wed, Mar 04, 2015 at 03:49:37PM -0700, Warren Young wrote: The principle of least surprise says that Fossil should behave like other VCSes. I think that the principle of least surprise for users of fossil is that

Re: [fossil-users] Justification for two-step mv and rm

2015-03-04 Thread bch
Personally, I thought we were talking about practical UX stuff here, not philosophy. That's not really fair -- this discussion is *couched* in applicable philosophies. On 3/4/15, Warren Young w...@etr-usa.com wrote: On Mar 4, 2015, at 3:27 PM, bch brad.har...@gmail.com wrote: Before you

Re: [fossil-users] Chiselapp isn't responding

2015-03-04 Thread Andreas Kupries
The maintainer/hoster of chiselapp is Roy Keene rke...@rkeene.org and I forwarded the initial mail to him a minute ago or so. On Wed, Mar 4, 2015 at 3:03 PM, bch brad.har...@gmail.com wrote: On 3/4/15, Ross Berteig r...@cheshireeng.com wrote: I just tried to autosync with a repo I keep on

Re: [fossil-users] Justification for two-step mv and rm

2015-03-04 Thread Richard Hipp
Just to be clear: I don't yet know what I'm going to do about rm/mv. But I am watching the discussion *very* closely and I deeply appreciate the input. Thank you all. Please continue. -- D. Richard Hipp d...@sqlite.org ___ fossil-users mailing list

Re: [fossil-users] Chiselapp isn't responding

2015-03-04 Thread Ross Berteig
It's back! On 3/4/2015 3:08 PM, Andreas Kupries wrote: The maintainer/hoster of chiselapp is Roy Keene rke...@rkeene.org and I forwarded the initial mail to him a minute ago or so. Thanks to some combination of bch, Andreas, and Roy, I'm happy to see that chiselapp.com is back on line and

Re: [fossil-users] Justification for two-step mv and rm

2015-03-04 Thread Francis Daly
On Wed, Mar 04, 2015 at 03:49:37PM -0700, Warren Young wrote: On Mar 4, 2015, at 3:27 PM, bch brad.har...@gmail.com wrote: Hi there, Sure, but: fossil is distinct from the filesystems. DOS, extn, ffs, etc., etc., etc are not versioning/managment filesystems, and there ought to be a

Re: [fossil-users] Chiselapp isn't responding

2015-03-04 Thread bch
/me nods. Thanks, -bch On 3/4/15, Andreas Kupries andre...@activestate.com wrote: The maintainer/hoster of chiselapp is Roy Keene rke...@rkeene.org and I forwarded the initial mail to him a minute ago or so. On Wed, Mar 4, 2015 at 3:03 PM, bch brad.har...@gmail.com wrote: On 3/4/15, Ross

Re: [fossil-users] Justification for two-step mv and rm

2015-03-04 Thread Francis Daly
On Wed, Mar 04, 2015 at 05:52:36PM -0700, Warren Young wrote: On Mar 4, 2015, at 5:28 PM, Francis Daly fran...@daoine.org wrote: On Wed, Mar 04, 2015 at 03:49:37PM -0700, Warren Young wrote: I think that the principle of least surprise for non-users of fossil is (much) less important. I

Re: [fossil-users] Justification for two-step mv and rm

2015-03-04 Thread Eric Rubin-Smith
I fwiw have always found Fossil's mv and rm semantics odd. The following semantics are basically what I expected when I first started using Fossil, but extended to preserve backward compatibility. They basically do what the user intended in all cases, do they not? * fossil rm FILE: * If

Re: [fossil-users] Justification for two-step mv and rm

2015-03-04 Thread Donny Ward
Every time I use fossil mv/rm, I've always had to issue the corresponding mv/rm command (or equivalent commands in Windows). Can someone describe a case where one would want to call fossil mv/rm, without intending the referenced file to be moved/removed as well? To me, making fossil mv/rm perform

Re: [fossil-users] Justification for two-step mv and rm

2015-03-04 Thread Ron W
On Wed, Mar 4, 2015 at 5:09 PM, Warren Young w...@etr-usa.com wrote: On Mar 4, 2015, at 10:24 AM, paul pault.eg...@gmail.com wrote: If fossil mv also moves files on a filesystem, I'd be happy with that, so long as I can still use a file browser as I'm doing now. All other VCSes I’ve

Re: [fossil-users] Justification for two-step mv and rm

2015-03-04 Thread Ron W
On Wed, Mar 4, 2015 at 5:18 PM, Warren Young w...@etr-usa.com wrote: Many filesystems and OSes combine file versioning and file management: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Versioning_file_system In a sense, VCSes are a way to get such features on top of filesystems that lack these

Re: [fossil-users] Justification for two-step mv and rm

2015-03-04 Thread Warren Young
On Mar 4, 2015, at 4:08 PM, David Mason dma...@ryerson.ca wrote: The only problem I see with rm is that, at first blush (looking at the table): You’re correct. If you try to remove an added but uncommitted new file, hg warns you: not removing foo: file has been marked for add (use forget

Re: [fossil-users] Justification for two-step mv and rm

2015-03-04 Thread Ron W
On Wed, Mar 4, 2015 at 7:05 PM, Warren Young w...@etr-usa.com wrote: You can get the same effect without making yourself nervous with “fossil revert”. This not mentioned in fossil help revert. It only says Revert to the current repository version of FILE or to specified version.

Re: [fossil-users] Justification for two-step mv and rm

2015-03-04 Thread Warren Young
On Mar 4, 2015, at 5:29 PM, Ron W ronw.m...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Mar 4, 2015 at 7:05 PM, Warren Young w...@etr-usa.com wrote: You can get the same effect without making yourself nervous with “fossil revert”. This not mentioned in fossil help revert. It only says Revert to the

Re: [fossil-users] Justification for two-step mv and rm

2015-03-04 Thread Ross Berteig
On 3/4/2015 3:08 PM, David Mason wrote: So I would endorse the change to fossil rm if we added a fossil forget command. Despite their similarities in many respects, 'mv' and 'rm' are different in this one respect. It has always bothered me that the command that reverses 'add' is 'rm', due to

Re: [fossil-users] Chiselapp isn't responding

2015-03-04 Thread bch
On 3/4/15, Ross Berteig r...@cheshireeng.com wrote: I just tried to autosync with a repo I keep on chiselapp.com, and it failed. I tried http://www.downforeveryoneorjustme.com/chiselapp.com and it reports that http://chiselapp.com/ is not responding, so it clearly isn't *just* my ISP

Re: [fossil-users] Cannot set 'autosync' and fossil ignores http_proxy

2015-03-04 Thread Alexandr Smolnikov
I'm sorry for the noise. Trunk fossil works OK. My old version hanged when server was down or unreachable (I'm behind proxy) f pull http://bigcrush1.mooo.com getaddrinfo() fails: Name or service not known f pull http://bigcrush.mooo.com hangs... [getaddrinfo() OK but connect() fails]

Re: [fossil-users] Cannot set 'autosync' and fossil ignores http_proxy

2015-03-04 Thread Richard Hipp
On 3/4/15, Alexandr Smolnikov bigcrush.k...@gmail.com wrote: 1) On 'fossil set autosync off' I got ambiguous setting autosync - might be: autosync autosync-tries Fixed by https://www.fossil-scm.org/fossil/info/c94efdf287eb9695 on 2015-02-07 2) fossil ignores 'http_proxy' but honors 'proxy'

[fossil-users] Cannot set 'autosync' and fossil ignores http_proxy

2015-03-04 Thread Alexandr Smolnikov
1) On 'fossil set autosync off' I got ambiguous setting autosync - might be: autosync autosync-tries 2) fossil ignores 'http_proxy' but honors 'proxy' settings if set manually strace shows that fossil hangs on sendto(-1, ...) All that happened after [32f8da0ce7] check-in