Re: [fossil-users] symlinks (was Re: xkcd on git)

Although I certainly agree with your point (and don’t care about symlinks myself, BTW), I’m afraid it’s a bit too late to expect portability of repos between platforms (mainly, Linux and Windows) without prior care from the repo maintainers. Just the fact the Linux has case-sensitive

Re: [fossil-users] symlinks (was Re: xkcd on git)

* Stephan Beal <sgb...@googlemail.com> [20151105 08:09]: > On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 7:59 PM, David Mason <dma...@ryerson.ca> wrote: > > > > > It's simple: a symlink is a filesystem artifact and should be reflected as > > such in the repository. It should

Re: [fossil-users] symlinks (was Re: xkcd on git)

Hi, On 2015-11-05 at 08:18 CET Stephan Beal wrote: >On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 7:59 PM, David Mason wrote: > >> It's simple: a symlink is a filesystem artifact and should be reflected as >> such in the repository. It should not be followed; if foo is a

Re: [fossil-users] Fossil does not generate https link prefix

On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 6:53 AM, Richard Hipp wrote: > On 11/4/15, Eduard wrote: > > Hi Taras, > > > > I've had a very similar problem. I fixed it by setting the "HTTPS" > > environment variable (for CGI execution) to "on" when the request comes >

Re: [fossil-users] 1.34: "cannot locate home directory"

Richard Hipp writes: > On 11/4/15, Rolf Ade wrote: >> Updating from my local build 1.32 (which works fine) to a local build >> (but not necessary with the same configure options) 1.34 I now get >> >> >> cannot locate home directory - please set the

Re: [fossil-users] Fossil does not generate https link prefix

On 11/4/15, Eduard wrote: > Hi Taras, > > I've had a very similar problem. I fixed it by setting the "HTTPS" > environment variable (for CGI execution) to "on" when the request comes > in through https, i.e. > > > SetEnv HTTPS on > > > You might want to remove

Re: [fossil-users] handling backports

On Nov 4, 2015, at 1:17 AM, Andy Bradford wrote: > yabbawhap > (released in 1991) still compiles (presumably correctly), unmodified, on > a modern OpenBSD system using GCC, as do numerous other packages that > are well over 15 years old and have received no modifications. It seems like with

Re: [fossil-users] symlinks (was Re: xkcd on git)

On Nov 4, 2015, at 11:52 PM, Stephan Beal wrote: > > You've hit it right on the head: POLICY. No SCM should enforce > project-specific policies, and symlinks (for me) fall into that category. I can argue the reverse on the same basis: Fossil shouldn’t be making a policy decision about what I

Re: [fossil-users] symlinks (was Re: xkcd on git)

On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 1:56 AM, Stephan Beal wrote: > > Thanks to Joe for stepping in to stop the bikeshedding :). > Yeah. In that spirit, I will abstain from addressing your other points from this morning, since I think most of the useful arguments are already on the

Re: [fossil-users] symlinks (was Re: xkcd on git)

On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 5:07 PM, Eric Rubin-Smith wrote: > On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 1:56 AM, Stephan Beal > wrote: >> >> Thanks to Joe for stepping in to stop the bikeshedding :). >> > > Yeah. In that spirit, I will abstain from addressing your other

[fossil-users] source code file is considered by fossil to be binary.

Hi, I am also trapped with this binary file detection for the egregious use of ascii characters 2 and 6 in my code. :( ;// ascii2+sometexthere+ascii6 ;//sometexthere;<-- pasting here does not show the prefix and suffix ascii characters. I cannot see diff's or my source code now in fossil

Re: [fossil-users] source code file is considered by fossil to be binary.

On Nov 5, 2015, at 11:37 AM, sky5w...@gmail.com wrote: > > I am also trapped with this binary file detection for the egregious use of > ascii characters 2 and 6 in my code. :( What does “fossil test-looks-like-utf filename” say for that file? ___

Re: [fossil-users] source code file is considered by fossil to be binary.

No, I just deleted ascii characters 2 and 6 from the file and Fossil now shows the file as text. I will have to build this ascii string in code instead of pasting from hex editor. But, it would be cool to set a range of acceptable ascii characters = text. Ex. ascii 1-127 = text. On Thu, Nov 5,

Re: [fossil-users] source code file is considered by fossil to be binary.

2015-11-05 19:37 GMT+01:00 : > Hi, > I am also trapped with this binary file detection for the egregious use of > ascii characters 2 and 6 in my code. :( > > ;// ascii2+sometexthere+ascii6 > ;//sometexthere ;<-- pasting here does not show the prefix and suffix > ascii

Re: [fossil-users] source code file is considered by fossil to be binary.

No, saving the file to utf-8 + BOM did not prompt Fossil to trigger text. And "decent" is a relative term. ;// Temp Tol ±°C ;<-- Ansi display :) ;// Temp Tol [xB1][xB0]C ;<-- UTF-8+BOM display :( On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 5:43 PM, wrote: > Thanks for looking at this. >

Re: [fossil-users] source code file is considered by fossil to be binary.

Haha, it would be quite a mess if $ and @ triggered binary. I see no reason to kick the file to binary if the ascii code < 128? On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 3:46 PM, wrote: > No difference besides num bytes with or without the embedded Ascii > characters 2 and 6. > I add this 1

Re: [fossil-users] source code file is considered by fossil to be binary.

On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 3:09 PM, wrote: > Well, I have a workaround(no pasted literal strings). I just didn't > realize Ascii characters within 1-255 could trigger binary? > > Maybe a fast histogram, and a count of << 1 or 2% for these ascii > characters allows text. Or let

Re: [fossil-users] source code file is considered by fossil to be binary.

On Nov 5, 2015, at 3:54 PM, sky5w...@gmail.com wrote: > > And "decent" is a relative term. No, it’s a value judgment. I judge that a text editor that can’t handle UTF-8 is indecent. :) > ;// Temp Tol ±°C ;<-- Ansi display :) > ;// Temp Tol [xB1][xB0]C ;<-- UTF-8+BOM display :( That

Re: [fossil-users] source code file is considered by fossil to be binary.

Yes yes, I am painfully aware of the BOM and the encoding steps. Notepad++ has a simple menu click for this. Despite all combinations, Fossil considers the file binary. On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 6:33 PM, Warren Young wrote: > On Nov 5, 2015, at 3:54 PM, sky5w...@gmail.com wrote:

Re: [fossil-users] source code file is considered by fossil to be binary.

On 11/5/15, sky5w...@gmail.com wrote: > Hi, > I am also trapped with this binary file detection for the egregious use of > ascii characters 2 and 6 in my code. :( > > ;// ascii2+sometexthere+ascii6 > ;//sometexthere ;<-- pasting here does not show the prefix and suffix >

Re: [fossil-users] source code file is considered by fossil to be binary.

Hi Dr Hipp, I also sent you "try2.fossil" with the offending file inside. In that repo, I toggled binary-glob settings with no changes to the file classification as binary. You are correct, the diff works for the tiny example file, but not if you try to view the entire file from the ui:

Re: [fossil-users] source code file is considered by fossil to be binary.

On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 9:52 PM, wrote: > Haha, it would be quite a mess if $ and @ triggered binary. > I see no reason to kick the file to binary if the ascii code < 128? > fwiw... [stephan@host:~/bin]$ hexdump fossil | head 000 457f 464c 0102 0001

Re: [fossil-users] source code file is considered by fossil to be binary.

Well, I have a workaround(no pasted literal strings). I just didn't realize Ascii characters within 1-255 could trigger binary? Maybe a fast histogram, and a count of << 1 or 2% for these ascii characters allows text. Or let the user define the valid range. By the way, Notepad, Notepad++, Visual

Re: [fossil-users] source code file is considered by fossil to be binary.

On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 12:16 PM, Jan Nijtmans wrote: > 2015-11-05 19:37 GMT+01:00 : > > Hi, > > I am also trapped with this binary file detection for the egregious use > of > > ascii characters 2 and 6 in my code. :( > > > > ;//

Re: [fossil-users] source code file is considered by fossil to be binary.

On 11/5/15, sky5w...@gmail.com wrote: > Well, I have a workaround(no pasted literal strings). I just didn't realize > Ascii characters within 1-255 could trigger binary? > > Maybe a fast histogram, and a count of << 1 or 2% for these ascii > characters allows text. Or let the

Re: [fossil-users] source code file is considered by fossil to be binary.

On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 1:52 PM, wrote: > Haha, it would be quite a mess if $ and @ triggered binary. > I see no reason to kick the file to binary if the ascii code < 128? > Not an unreasonable point of view, but the question becomes: How do you render character codes less

Re: [fossil-users] source code file is considered by fossil to be binary.

No difference besides num bytes with or without the embedded Ascii characters 2 and 6. I add this 1 line to my file and it triggers binary?! [Asc2]+"123"+[Asc6][CR+LF] c:\tryfossil>fossil test-looks-like-utf myfile.txt File "myfile.txt" has 121343 bytes. Starts with UTF-8 BOM: no Starts with

Re: [fossil-users] source code file is considered by fossil to be binary.

On 11/5/15, Richard Hipp wrote: > On 11/5/15, sky5w...@gmail.com wrote: >> Hi Dr Hipp, I also sent you "try2.fossil" with the offending file inside. >> In that repo, I toggled binary-glob settings with no changes to the file >> classification as binary. >>

Re: [fossil-users] source code file is considered by fossil to be binary.

On 11/5/15, sky5w...@gmail.com wrote: > Hi Dr Hipp, I also sent you "try2.fossil" with the offending file inside. > In that repo, I toggled binary-glob settings with no changes to the file > classification as binary. > You are correct, the diff works for the tiny example file,