On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 2:11 AM, die.drachen die.drac...@gmail.com wrote:
Further questions about staging area:
If I do this:
(1) Edit file xyzzy.txt
(2) git add xyzzy.txt
(3) More edits to xyzzy.txt
(4) git commit
Then does only the first set of edits to xyzzy.txt
On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 5:38 AM, Reimer Behrends behre...@gmail.com wrote:
First, the safer (and arguably overall better) approach is to recognize
that stash/shelve operations are the inverse of the staging area for this
purpose. I.e., rather than stage a partial commit, you stash everything
2015-03-20 4:56 GMT+01:00 Richard Hipp d...@sqlite.org:
I rue the day that I allowed that patch to land on trunk.
But it is all fixed now - you won't have the problem with 1.32.
Note that the initial empty commit is an unique feature of
fossil, GIT and SVN don't have that. Abilio started with
a
A possible workflow to do partial commits in fossil could be:
- fossil diff --tk --partial-commit
(A special version of fossil diff --tk appears where there is a
checkbox in every difference)
- Select some differences
- Save and quit
(Then, an automatic fossil stash is performed where the
On Fri, 20 Mar 2015 11:46:14 +0200
John Found johnfo...@asm32.info wrote:
On Thu, 19 Mar 2015 22:36:56 -0430
Abilio Marques abili...@gmail.com wrote:
I started to think: what does it mean to have multiple independent
check-outs? And I knew I wouldn't be able to sleep well because of not
Richard Hipp d...@sqlite.org writes:
Please help me to understand why people think that the git staging
area is a good idea.
Considering that git provides 'commit -a' option which practically
eliminates staging area.
Moreover, the author of very popular Pro Git book
On Thu, 19 Mar 2015 22:36:56 -0430
Abilio Marques abili...@gmail.com wrote:
I started to think: what does it mean to have multiple independent
check-outs? And I knew I wouldn't be able to sleep well because of not
knowing. So I created a new test repo, and began:
It really surprised me. Using
Warren, thanks for your reply. It was pretty comprehensive, and I liked it,
even when those are bad news. I actually discovered some of them myself a
long time ago... Same goes to GIT, That's the reason I've only toyed with
the idea, but then started to think about the many many things that have
Am 19.03.2015 um 19:36 schrieb Andy Bradford:
Thus said Tontyna on Thu, 19 Mar 2015 11:58:40 +0100:
Starting several fossil servers with ui increments port from 8080 onwards.
Starting several fossil servers with server increments port ditto.
Mixing ui and server instances results in
On Mar 20, 2015 1:07 PM, Abilio Marques abili...@gmail.com wrote:
Yeah, stash is the way I do all the time, but sometimes I want to exclude
binaries that are regenerated each time a change and compilation occurs,
until I'm ready to the new version to go into trunk.
Top of my mind, the PDF
Thus said Abilio Marques on Fri, 20 Mar 2015 13:58:33 -0430:
Then I start to work in a new feature, and I add 10 functions (I will
only show one here).
Now that you know about it, can the start of a new feature also involve
another fossil open of the repository for said feature?
Thanks,
On Mar 20, 2015 5:02 PM, jungle Boogie jungleboog...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi All,
Can zakero's updates be pushed to trunk/tip or is there still code review?
http://fossil-scm.org/index.html/info/9fc08d9200e432f9
http://fossil-scm.org/
Thus said Richard Hipp on Fri, 20 Mar 2015 13:04:44 -0400:
(1) Make logically separate changes in separate check-outs so that
they are easy to test and commit separately.
I think this ability to have multiple checkouts of the same repository
is a much more elegant solution, but it does
On Mar 20, 2015 4:37 PM, Andrew Moore zak...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mar 20, 2015 5:02 PM, jungle Boogie jungleboog...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi All,
Can zakero's updates be pushed to trunk/tip or is there still code
review?
http://fossil-scm.org/index.html/info/9fc08d9200e432f9
++1
From: Scott Robison
Sent: Friday, March 20, 2015 11:08 PM
On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 2:55 PM, Steve Stefanovich s...@stef.rs wrote:
If we are discussing partial, I'm more interested in partial checkouts than
partial commits, i.e. having the ability to checkout a specific directory only.
Thus said Ron W on Fri, 20 Mar 2015 13:19:58 -0400:
Never too late to stash. If I decide I need to split out changes
already made, I stash the files, then do fossil stash gdiff to
selectively (re) apply the stashed changes, then build/test/commit.
gdiff allows you to selectively
Thus said Marcel Graf on Fri, 20 Mar 2015 18:30:11 +0100:
Imho, the missing piece would be stash having means to do partial
stashing (finer than on file-by-file base). This the would allow to do
these splittings of a mixed up check-outs a bit easier (including
testing before committing,
Thus said Ron W on Fri, 20 Mar 2015 15:56:51 -0400:
I've never seen a non-gui, interactive merge, so I don't know how
feasible to create such a tool
Here's a non-gui, interactive merge (I didn't show it, but there is also
an edit command which invokes $EDITOR on just the chunk in
On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 11:24 AM, Ramon Ribó ram...@compassis.com wrote:
A possible workflow to do partial commits in fossil could be:
- fossil diff --tk --partial-commit
(A special version of fossil diff --tk appears where there is a
checkbox in every difference)
A partial-file commit
On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 1:45 PM, Ramon Ribó ram...@compassis.com wrote:
A partial-file commit implies that one will commit untested code (because
it's impossible to test a partial commit). While that might be
acceptable in
some projects, many would not allow it.
If you read the full
On Mar 20, 2015 5:05 AM, Henry Adisumarto henry.adisuma...@gmail.com
wrote:
Hi,
I wonder why there isn’t a command for simplifying the process of marking
a commit as a mistake. So with a single command, fossil will:
·Move the commit and its derived commits to mistake branch.
What
On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 12:56 PM, Abilio Marques abili...@gmail.com wrote:
I personally would like a selective stash. Perhaps one where you can
selectively push some changes (then fossil could proceed to remove them
from the actual files), or selectively pop/apply some changes (but I
imagine
A partial-file commit implies that one will commit untested code (because
it's impossible to test a partial commit). While that might be acceptable in
some projects, many would not allow it.
If you read the full workflow description, there is a line with text:
- Compile and test
RR
But how do you do that when checking in _part_ of a file? The compiler
compiles the _whole_ file.
Well, every user, depending on their group policies, will decide what
can be done and what not.
Option a) it is not allowed to commit without compiling and testing
Then, the user must be sure
On 3/20/15, Stephan Beal sgb...@googlemail.com wrote:
On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 12:56 PM, Abilio Marques abili...@gmail.com
wrote:
I personally would like a selective stash. Perhaps one where you can
selectively push some changes (then fossil could proceed to remove them
from the actual
On Mar 20, 2015 5:39 AM, Stephan Beal sgb...@googlemail.com wrote:
On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 11:24 AM, Ramon Ribó ram...@compassis.com wrote:
A possible workflow to do partial commits in fossil could be:
- fossil diff --tk --partial-commit
(A special version of fossil diff --tk appears where
I was about to suggest the same because I often have this situation, also. I
need to commit a large number of files, except one or two which are still no
ready for commit.
I’ve been thinking about what the simplest way from a user’s point of view
would be, and I think if in the editor that
2015-03-20 13:41 GMT+01:00 Stephan Beal sgb...@googlemail.com:
I wonder why there isn’t a command for simplifying the process of marking
a commit as a mistake. So with a single command, fossil will:
·The mistaken commits will be hidden from the timeline.
i have always disliked the
On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 12:22 PM, Abilio Marques abili...@gmail.com wrote:
To put it back again in better words, the idea is to make an adaptor that
let's existing apps (mostly IDEs) to use Fossil as another version control
system, until they get a native plugin, but via using the existing GIT
Can we define partial commit ?
Are we talking about when I code, code, code and then realize
that I've got two features' worth of new material and would like to
separate them so that Feature B is held back, Feature A is applied
(and yes, tested, etc., etc) and committed, then Feature B is applied
Yes, that's my vision of it. I've come to several situations in which
feature A and feature B share the same file.
I then proceed to remove all the code from feature B, run the tests for the
A, pass them, then commit. Then apply back the lines from feature B,
retest, pass, and commit.
Actually
On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 12:56 PM, Abilio Marques abili...@gmail.com
wrote:
I personally would like a selective stash.
Yes, I would find selective stash save/apply useful.
But I see the dangers of partial commit of git's staging area. I admit,
I've abused that myself to commit a comment or
Hello,
today I wanted to switch back to weechat irc client (from hexcha) since
I'm moving back from gnome to xfce and wanted to restore my old archived
config.
However, have problem opening it:
$ fossil open ~/repos/local/fossil/weechat.fossil
not found: master
Tried to run rebuild on it, but
On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 4:20 PM, Gour g...@atmarama.net wrote:
$ fossil open ~/repos/local/fossil/weechat.fossil
not found: master
Tried to run rebuild on it, but no luck. :-(
Is master a branch name? (If so, it sounds like you are running that from a
current checkout on that branch?)
How
Stephan Beal sgb...@googlemail.com writes:
How about:
fossil open ...file... trunk
Ahh, that's result when one was fiddling with git. :-)
Sincerely,
Gour
--
One must deliver himself with the help of his mind, and not
degrade himself. The mind is the friend of the conditioned soul,
and
Hello developers,
I've played around with a most recent version of trunk
https://www.fossil-scm.org/fossil/info/dabb08e9b31bb0b2
and I think I've found a bug in fossil's svn import feature.
Um, I'm not so skilled on the command line and hope that the translation is
some kind of understandable.
On 3/20/15, Gour g...@atmarama.net wrote:
Hello,
today I wanted to switch back to weechat irc client (from hexcha) since
I'm moving back from gnome to xfce and wanted to restore my old archived
config.
However, have problem opening it:
$ fossil open ~/repos/local/fossil/weechat.fossil
David Macek wrote:
First, there's the option of cloning the repository locally, which will result
in two working copies you can work on independently. Maybe too independently,
as each working copy has its own repo. If you want to see some structure there,
you can keep one clone as a bare repo
On 20. 3. 2015 21:30, Warren Young wrote:
On Mar 19, 2015, at 9:27 PM, Richard Hipp d...@sqlite.org wrote:
There is no documentation because I could not conceive of wanting to
use a VCS in any other way.
It’s been several years since Git emerged as top dog in the DVCS race, so
there must
After a yesterday's email entitled “is this a crazy idea?” meant to ask
about a shim ended in a really interesting discussion about select specific
changes to files, I think we could give that idea a chance to live (just as
an idea, for the time being).
I've personally gone through times where
Hello,
$ sed -ne 's/.*\\(.*\.wiki\).*/\1/p' www/permutedindex.html | sort | wc -l
163
$ sed -ne 's/.*\\(.*\.wiki\).*/\1/p' www/permutedindex.html | sort -u | wc -l
49
$ sed -ne 's/.*\\(.*\.md\).*/\1/p' www/permutedindex.html | sort | wc -l
9
$ sed -ne 's/.*\\(.*\.md\).*/\1/p'
I feel exactly like below little excerpt from recent drh's email on the
subject. There other bits of Fossil that are more important - to me, at least -
to spend time on, like polishing search, improving wiki and ticketing default
setup, etc.
If we are discussing partial, I'm more interested
On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 2:55 PM, Steve Stefanovich s...@stef.rs wrote:
If we are discussing partial, I'm more interested in partial checkouts
than partial commits, i.e. having the ability to checkout a specific
directory only. Now that would be useful for us with big source trees where
there
Stephan Beal wrote:
On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 12:56 PM, Abilio Marques abili...@gmail.com
mailto:abili...@gmail.com wrote:
I personally would like a selective stash. Perhaps one where you can
selectively push some changes (then fossil could proceed to remove
them from the actual
On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 2:28 PM, Abilio Marques abili...@gmail.com wrote:
So including that patch right now seems really important. But I have a mix
between the patch and the unfinished (and also untested).
Until yesterday, what did I do?
fossil stash snapshot
go to the editor, find the
On 2015-03-20T07:26:53 -0430
Abilio Marques abili...@gmail.com wrote:
I personally would like a selective stash.
This seems like the best of all worlds: You get the clean separate
commits typical of git, but with each of those commits actually
compiled and tested.
I tried to put this together
On 20/03/15 08:16, Peter Spjuth wrote:
On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 5:38 AM, Reimer Behrends behre...@gmail.com
mailto:behre...@gmail.com wrote:
First, the safer (and arguably overall better) approach is to
recognize that stash/shelve operations are the inverse of the
staging area for
On 3/20/15, Abilio Marques abili...@gmail.com wrote:
But sometimes the subset of files to include in the first commit is longest
than the ones to be included in the second... so perhaps something like
fossil ci -m first commit --ignore file1 file2
I have your request. In the meantime,
On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 2:55 PM, Richard Hipp d...@sqlite.org wrote:
On 3/20/15, Abilio Marques abili...@gmail.com wrote:
fossil ci -m first commit --ignore file1 file2
I have your request. In the meantime, consider this work-around:
fossil stash save file1 file2
# test
Yeah, stash is the way I do all the time, but sometimes I want to exclude
binaries that are regenerated each time a change and compilation occurs,
until I'm ready to the new version to go into trunk.
Top of my mind, the PDF files that are generated when I use LaTeX. I want
to keep the stable
On 3/20/15, Richard Hipp d...@sqlite.org wrote:
On 3/20/15, Martin S. Weber ephae...@gmx.net wrote:
On 2015-03-20 09:02:32, Richard Hipp wrote:
(...)
I'm still having trouble understanding how the partial commit would be
*useful*, though.
Also, ideally you're working in a flow anyways (the
Ok, in an attempt to provide a short example:
The code is working, I have tests, yet I don't test for memory leaks.
That's my current scenario. A code snippet follows:
void functionA() {
char *thisWillLeak;
...
thisWillLeak = malloc(1024);
...
// never free nor return the memory
}
But sometimes the subset of files to include in the first commit is longest
than the ones to be included in the second... so perhaps something like
fossil ci -m first commit --ignore file1 file2
would be easier than:
fossil ci -m first commit file3 file4 file5 file6... file12
On Fri, Mar 20,
On 3/20/2015 6:59 AM, Svyatoslav Mishyn wrote:
$ sed -ne 's/.*\\(.*\.wiki\).*/\1/p' www/permutedindex.html | sort | wc -l
163
$ sed -ne 's/.*\\(.*\.wiki\).*/\1/p' www/permutedindex.html | sort -u | wc -l
49
$ sed -ne 's/.*\\(.*\.md\).*/\1/p' www/permutedindex.html | sort | wc -l
9
$
Maybe. But after Peter's comment, perhaps that way of working shouldn't
be encouraged
anyway, despite not breaking anything doing this sort of thing, yet ...
On 20/03/15 18:49, Abilio Marques wrote:
But sometimes the subset of files to include in the first commit is
longest than the ones
On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 7:56 AM, Abilio Marques abili...@gmail.com wrote:
Yet before that, I knew about stash. But sometimes it was already too late
to simply stash and begin doing some other changes, as both changes were
already in the file.
Never too late to stash. If I decide I need to
On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 1:30 PM, Marcel Graf graf.m.ml+sbf...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 6:04 PM, Richard Hipp d...@sqlite.org wrote:
On 3/20/15, Martin S. Weber ephae...@gmx.net wrote:
...
in itself). So you end up with intermingled changes which one would
like to split
On 2015-03-20 13:04:44, Richard Hipp wrote:
(...)
The way I deal with this in SQLite is:
(1) Make logically separate changes in separate check-outs so that
they are easy to test and commit separately. (...)
That's the sort of flow-interrupting context switch I was referring to
on one hand,
On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 2:02 PM, Richard Hipp d...@sqlite.org wrote:
I agree with Stephan, except to note that some repositories do not
store code. If you are checking in changes to text documentation,
then maybe testing is not as important and a partial commit would be
ok.
I believe it can
On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 10:26 AM, bch brad.har...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm still confused about what complete or split means in the
contexts that I think people are using this --
If I accidentally code two different logical thoughts into a single
file -- and so they are combined, and uncommitted
On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 6:04 PM, Richard Hipp d...@sqlite.org wrote:
On 3/20/15, Martin S. Weber ephae...@gmx.net wrote:
...
in itself). So you end up with intermingled changes which one would
like to split cleanly.
The way I deal with this in SQLite is:
...
(2) On the occasions when I
On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 5:56 AM, Abilio Marques abili...@gmail.com wrote:
Neat ideas already popped. Here I copy/paste some fragments of them:
fossil diff --tk --partial-commit (Then, an automatic fossil stash is
performed where the original modified files are stored. The files left in
the
On 2015-03-20 09:02:32, Richard Hipp wrote:
(...)
I'm still having trouble understanding how the partial commit would be
*useful*, though.
Some people like their metadata (i.e. fossil's commit message log) to
match up with what they were doing in the files. You go to your file, you
begin to
On 3/20/15, Martin S. Weber ephae...@gmx.net wrote:
On 2015-03-20 09:02:32, Richard Hipp wrote:
(...)
I'm still having trouble understanding how the partial commit would be
*useful*, though.
Also, ideally you're working in a flow anyways (the deep meditative
state where stuff gets done
I'm still confused about what complete or split means in the
contexts that I think people are using this --
If I accidentally code two different logical thoughts into a single
file -- and so they are combined, and uncommitted -- why would tools
or facilities to aid making-discrete two different
On Mar 19, 2015, at 9:27 PM, Richard Hipp d...@sqlite.org wrote:
There is no documentation because I could not conceive of wanting to
use a VCS in any other way.
It’s been several years since Git emerged as top dog in the DVCS race, so there
must be a significant number of people who have
On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 3:32 PM, Marcel Graf graf.m.ml+sbf...@gmail.com
wrote:
I was more thinking about a command line only version of stash/snapshot
--interactive asking for each file if i want it entirely or split and in
case of the latter, letting me select each chunk without the use of an
On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 7:14 PM, Ron W ronw.m...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 1:30 PM, Marcel Graf graf.m.ml+sbf...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 6:04 PM, Richard Hipp d...@sqlite.org wrote:
On 3/20/15, Martin S. Weber ephae...@gmx.net wrote:
...
in itself). So
Hi All,
Can zakero's updates be pushed to trunk/tip or is there still code review?
http://fossil-scm.org/index.html/info/9fc08d9200e432f9
http://fossil-scm.org/index.html/info/4b1671f8fd168cdd
--
---
inum: 883510009027723
sip: jungleboo...@sip2sip.info
xmpp: jungle-boo...@jit.si
On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 4:55 PM, Steve Stefanovich s...@stef.rs wrote:
If we are discussing partial, I'm more interested in partial checkouts
than partial commits, i.e. having the ability to checkout a specific
directory only. Now that would be useful for us with big source trees where
there
70 matches
Mail list logo
