Re: [fossil-users] Fossil mentioned on HN

Thus said Stephan Beal on Wed, 16 Dec 2015 10:36:18 +0100: > One of the reasons i always liked StarWars better than Star Trek is > because in Star Trek everything is so antiseptically _clean_, whereas > in Star Wars ships have dirt ("carbon scoring") and scratches on them, > and the lights

Re: [fossil-users] Rewrite of fossil-v-git.wiki. Was: Fossil mentioned on HN

might not be fault tolerant in the Enterprise marketing sense of the term, but it's fairly tolerant of faults at various levels. ;) In any case, it's undisputedly more tolerant of storage-system failures than git is. - stephan beal, sgb...@googlemail.com Written on a keyboard attached to a

Re: [fossil-users] Rewrite of fossil-v-git.wiki. Was: Fossil mentioned on HN

On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 11:16 AM, Richard Hipp wrote: > Based on comments on HN and on this mailing list, I have attempted to > rewrite the fossil-v-git.wiki document > (https://www.fossil-scm.org/fossil/doc/trunk/www/fossil-v-git.wiki) to > better summarize the differences

Re: [fossil-users] Rewrite of fossil-v-git.wiki. Was: Fossil mentioned on HN

Is a sql database fault tolerant? I guess so, but think that is not what most people consider fault tolerant. On Dec 16, 2015 9:36 AM, "Stephan Beal" wrote: > Section 4.1: in fossil, but not git: fault-tolerant storage. > > - stephan beal, sgb...@googlemail.com >

Re: [fossil-users] Fossil mentioned on HN

On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 4:06 AM, Stephan Beal wrote: > On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 11:59 AM, Gaurav M. Bhandarkar < > gaurav.a...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> "git rebase -i" seems to enable me to work on multiple projects at the >> same time. Because of it I can maintain versioned

Re: [fossil-users] Fossil mentioned on HN

On Dec 16, 2015, at 2:28 PM, Scott Robison wrote: > > couldn't 99% of rebase use cases be handled with private branches? Probably not with the current design. For one thing, there are no “branches”, only “branch.” That is, the private branch is always called

Re: [fossil-users] Fossil mentioned on HN

On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 4:12 PM, wrote: > > Hmm.. If one can create a private branch, do all draft work there and when done merge to trunk (or other non-private branch), then sync with the main repo, the main repo will not contain any traces of the private branch (with the draft

Re: [fossil-users] Fossil mentioned on HN

Hmm.. If one can create a private branch, do all draft work there and when done merge to trunk (or other non-private branch), then sync with the main repo, the main repo will not contain any traces of the private branch (with the draft work). Am I correct? So, if then the local repo is deleted

Re: [fossil-users] Fossil mentioned on HN

On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 4:53 PM, Warren Young wrote: > On Dec 16, 2015, at 2:28 PM, Scott Robison > wrote: > > > > couldn't 99% of rebase use cases be handled with private branches? > > Probably not with the current design. For one thing, there are no

Re: [fossil-users] Fossil mentioned on HN

On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 4:27 AM, Gaurav M. Bhandarkar wrote: > > fast forward merges is just one of the advantages of rebase. It is done to > avoid the extra “merge-commit” and thus reduces the noise in repo history. > Don't need rebase to use fast-forward merge. As I

Re: [fossil-users] Fossil mentioned on HN

On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 6:41 PM, Ron W wrote: > On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 6:53 PM, Scott Robison > wrote: > >> > You can remove all private branches from a repository using this >> command: >> > fossil scrub --private >> > Note that the above is a

Re: [fossil-users] Fossil mentioned on HN

>It's a matter of taste I agree. >To me that seems simpler than [ab]using the SCM for that type of thing I think the power of versioning given by the SCM may not be limited to just the publishable code that I write. IMO using it to version other things isn't abusing but realizing its true

Re: [fossil-users] Fossil mentioned on HN

Yes, rebase is just a faster way to cherry-pick and other things: http://think-like-a-git.net/sections/rebase-from-the-ground-up/using-git-cherry-pick-to-simulate-git-rebase.html On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 11:43 AM, Scott Robison wrote: > On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 10:34

Re: [fossil-users] Fossil mentioned on HN

> Don't need rebase to use fast-forward merge. Normal merge or rebase both "enables" fast-forward merges. But the advantage "rebase-before-ff-merge" has is that it avoids other(s) extra "merge commits" that you would have done to get your branch updated with changes from remote. See the section

Re: [fossil-users] Fossil mentioned on HN

On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 10:34 PM, Gaurav M. Bhandarkar < gaurav.a...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Don't need rebase to use fast-forward merge. > > Normal merge or rebase both "enables" fast-forward merges. But the > advantage "rebase-before-ff-merge" has is that it avoids other(s) extra > "merge

Re: [fossil-users] Rewrite of fossil-v-git.wiki. Was: Fossil mentioned on HN

This ‎reads better then previous version and more detail is given, thanks. ‎ The ve‎ry last bit (4.2 - Fossil inability to push/pull single branch) sounds somewhat weak, though.  ‎ Perhaps it could be strengthened by mentioning bundle command as a way to export a branch, but I also think bundle

Re: [fossil-users] Fossil mentioned on HN

>The forced "merge commit" is (IMO) a design flaw in git Ya. But people can enforce a merge process where the contributor has to rebase(not rebase -i) and test before the ff-merge to avoid the flaw. Ron W has explained that in detail. > If "cleanliness is godliness" then git might have fossil

Re: [fossil-users] Command line access to technotes and attachments

On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 4:38 AM, David Vines wrote: Run various subcommands to work with wiki entries or tech notes. > >Options: > -M|-mimetype TEXT-FORMAT The mime type of the update > defaulting to the type used

Re: [fossil-users] Command line access to technotes and attachments

Fossil internally treats single and double dashes the same (unless i'm sorely misremembering). - stephan beal, sgb...@googlemail.com Written on a keyboard attached to a telephone attached to a TV screen, via an app written for use on touchscreens. Please excuse brevity, typos, and whatnot. On

Re: [fossil-users] Command line access to technotes and attachments

On 16/12/2015 15:50, Ron W wrote: Minor issue: While Fossil is inconsistent with this, the common convention for "long options" is --option with 2 dashes. I haven't used the "-mimetype" option so I don't know if it's a documentation error or implementation oversight. In other Fossil

[fossil-users] Rewrite of fossil-v-git.wiki. Was: Fossil mentioned on HN

Based on comments on HN and on this mailing list, I have attempted to rewrite the fossil-v-git.wiki document (https://www.fossil-scm.org/fossil/doc/trunk/www/fossil-v-git.wiki) to better summarize the differences between the two products. Your feedback on the rewrite, and especially suggestions

Re: [fossil-users] Rewrite of fossil-v-git.wiki. Was: Fossil mentioned on HN

Section 4.1: in fossil, but not git: fault-tolerant storage. - stephan beal, sgb...@googlemail.com Written on a keyboard attached to a telephone attached to a TV screen, via an app written for use on touchscreens. Please excuse brevity, typos, and whatnot. On Dec 16, 2015 5:16 PM, "Richard

Re: [fossil-users] Fossil mentioned on HN

> The end result is theoretically the equivalent of having started your branch at the latest trunk tip instead of where ever you really started it fast forward merges is just one of the advantages of rebase. It is done to avoid the extra “merge-commit” and thus reduces the noise in repo history.

Re: [fossil-users] Fossil mentioned on HN

On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 10:27 AM, Gaurav M. Bhandarkar < gaurav.a...@gmail.com> wrote: > > The end result is theoretically the equivalent of having started your > branch at the latest trunk tip instead of where ever you really started it > > > fast forward merges is just one of the advantages of

Re: [fossil-users] Command line access to technotes and attachments

On 15/12/2015 09:55, Stephan Beal wrote: Here's an encouraging anecdote for you: my first C work after 1995[1] was implementing the wiki CLI commands Richard mentioned :). i concur that the wiki commands would be the best starting point for adding Tech Note (formerly "event") CLI support.

Re: [fossil-users] Command line access to technotes and attachments

On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 10:38 AM, David Vines wrote: > It has indeed proved quite straightforward! :-D > Usage: ../fossil wiki (export|create|commit|list) WikiName > > Run various subcommands to work with wiki entries or tech notes. > i hadn't considered the