Re: [fossil-users] Completely untagged commits ?

2016-01-06 Thread Stephan Beal
On Wed, Jan 6, 2016 at 10:18 AM, Stephan Beal wrote: > From what i remember in libfossil, it is possible to go from private to > public, but never the reverse. Mixing private content with public in a > commit causes, if i'm understanding the code correctly, the whole

Re: [fossil-users] Completely untagged commits ?

2016-01-06 Thread Stephan Beal
On Tue, Jan 5, 2016 at 8:32 PM, bch wrote: > On 1/5/16, Richard Hipp wrote: > > On 1/5/16, Richard Hipp wrote: > > Even after rebuilding, the check-in shows up as "unpublished". > > There's a bug somewhere in the "private" tag handling.

Re: [fossil-users] Completely untagged commits ?

2016-01-06 Thread Ron W
On Wed, Jan 6, 2016 at 4:18 AM, Stephan Beal wrote: > > i agree with Andy B. that "publish" is not the right command here - that's > intended for bundles, as i understand it. i've no experience with bundles. > The docs suggest it's also applicable to ant private artifacts

Re: [fossil-users] Completely untagged commits ?

2016-01-05 Thread bch
Hi Dave. Don't fret! I'm not attributing this to malice or blaming -you-, but something does look strange to me (on my local copy of the repo). Cheers, -bch On 1/5/16, David Vines wrote: > On 05/01/2016 18:53, bch wrote: >> How did we end up w/ dave.vines'

Re: [fossil-users] Completely untagged commits ?

2016-01-05 Thread David Vines
On 05/01/2016 18:53, bch wrote: How did we end up w/ dave.vines' completely untagged (no branch) commits in the repository (or am I misreading what these are?) ? ref: /info/b208bf75777604dc /timeline?u=dave.vines=2016-01-05+10%3A12%3A56=200 If I've messed this up, I do most humbly

Re: [fossil-users] Completely untagged commits ?

2016-01-05 Thread bch
On 1/5/16, Richard Hipp wrote: > On 1/5/16, Richard Hipp wrote: >> On 1/5/16, David Vines wrote: >>> >>> One curious aspect I do see is that the web ui has the annotation of >>> "unpublished" against the creation of the branch. I did

[fossil-users] Completely untagged commits ?

2016-01-05 Thread bch
How did we end up w/ dave.vines' completely untagged (no branch) commits in the repository (or am I misreading what these are?) ? ref: /info/b208bf75777604dc /timeline?u=dave.vines=2016-01-05+10%3A12%3A56=200 ___ fossil-users mailing list

Re: [fossil-users] Completely untagged commits ?

2016-01-05 Thread bch
Here's what I see on my *local* machine (see also attached ffox screenshot): strathcona$ fossil timel === 2016-01-05 === 10:12:56 [d4dc7ad8dc] [c541b6e734] Remove unintended white space change in wiki.c (user: dave.vines) 08:40:09 [64a5ef28e5] [c541b6e734] Move attachment command from wiki.c to

Re: [fossil-users] Completely untagged commits ?

2016-01-05 Thread bch
I just did another pull, and the branch tags showed up, so @drh, I think your rebuild helped somewhat. Now to find out how the repo got into it's "broken" state in the first place. On 1/5/16, bch wrote: > On 1/5/16, Richard Hipp wrote: >> On 1/5/16,

Re: [fossil-users] Completely untagged commits ?

2016-01-05 Thread Richard Hipp
On 1/5/16, David Vines wrote: > > One curious aspect I do see is that the web ui has the annotation of > "unpublished" against the creation of the branch. I did start by have a > private branch which I then published - I do wonder if this might be > part of the problem.

Re: [fossil-users] Completely untagged commits ?

2016-01-05 Thread Richard Hipp
On 1/5/16, Richard Hipp wrote: > On 1/5/16, David Vines wrote: >> >> One curious aspect I do see is that the web ui has the annotation of >> "unpublished" against the creation of the branch. I did start by have a >> private branch which I then published

Re: [fossil-users] Completely untagged commits ?

2016-01-05 Thread Richard Hipp
On 1/5/16, bch wrote: > I just did another pull, and the branch tags showed up, so @drh, I > think your rebuild helped somewhat. Now to find out how the repo got > into it's "broken" state in the first place. > The rebuild didn't help. It was my manual DELETE of the

Re: [fossil-users] Completely untagged commits ?

2016-01-05 Thread Richard Hipp
On 1/5/16, bch wrote: > What's incorrect, the documentation, or the implementation ? Both, IIRC. I think you can convert a private branch to public by cancelling the "private" tag. But I don't think that feature is completely operational right now. But it has been over

Re: [fossil-users] Completely untagged commits ?

2016-01-05 Thread David Vines
On 05/01/2016 19:53, Richard Hipp wrote: On 1/5/16, bch wrote: What's incorrect, the documentation, or the implementation ? Both, IIRC. I think you can convert a private branch to public by cancelling the "private" tag. But I don't think that feature is completely

Re: [fossil-users] Completely untagged commits ?

2016-01-05 Thread bch
What's incorrect, the documentation, or the implementation ? >From private.wiki: After additional work, one might desire to publish the changes associated with a private branch. The usual way to do this is to merge those changes into a public branch. For example: fossil update trunk fossil

Re: [fossil-users] Completely untagged commits ?

2016-01-05 Thread Andy Bradford
Thus said David Vines on Tue, 05 Jan 2016 20:08:40 +: > And what I read (and was presumably misled by) was the help text on > fossil publish which says "can be used (for example) to convert a > private branch into a public branch." If I'm not mistaken, the ``fossil publish'' command