Re: [fossil-users] xkcd on git

On 2 November 2015 at 18:20, Scott Robison wrote: > > Given that the git cli interface was the only interface for humans from the > start, I dare say it was meant for humans. > Any git reference I have seen has that notion of 'porcelain' and 'plumbing' with plumbing

Re: [fossil-users] xkcd on git

On 3 November 2015 at 22:31, Warren Young wrote: > On Nov 3, 2015, at 5:59 AM, Michal Suchanek wrote: >> >>> Note that detached head state is impossible in Fossil and in most >>> other VCSs. (Unsure about Hg.) >> >> Detached head state is the state which

Re: [fossil-users] xkcd on git

On Nov 3, 2015, at 5:59 AM, Michal Suchanek wrote: > > On 2 November 2015 at 20:40, Richard Hipp wrote: >> On 11/2/15, Michal Suchanek wrote: >>> >>> when you >>> want to separate the changes you want to commit and changes you want >>>

Re: [fossil-users] xkcd on git

On Nov 3, 2015, at 3:16 PM, Michal Suchanek wrote: > > This is nice example of out of context quoting. No, it’s an example of trimming quotes because it is only necessary to remind people what was being said, since it’s 2015 and we all have mailers with history scrollback

Re: [fossil-users] xkcd on git

On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 7:59 AM, Michal Suchanek wrote: > > On 2 November 2015 at 20:40, Richard Hipp wrote: > > But on the other hand, you should not be checking-in untested changes. > > The proper way to do incremental check-ins is to stash the whole lot, >

Re: [fossil-users] xkcd on git

On Sat, 31 Oct 2015 09:53:52 +0100 Stephan Beal wrote: > > Unless you delete .git your checkout is always in well defined > > state. > No, it's not. i once literally had one of the libgit maintainers at > my desk for a full hour trying to get my repo (of a project we were

Re: [fossil-users] xkcd on git

Thus said Scott Doctor on Fri, 30 Oct 2015 13:37:47 -0700: > What I meant was I end up spending much time trying to get the tools > to do what I want it to do versus how it wants to do it. In your opinion, how can a DVCS tool get the job done in the way you want to do it?

Re: [fossil-users] xkcd on git

On 2 November 2015 at 18:20, Scott Robison wrote: > On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 4:25 AM, Michal Suchanek wrote: >> >> On 31 October 2015 at 23:33, Richard Hipp wrote: >> > >> > I'll argue that Git is not beneficial even to people who have

Re: [fossil-users] xkcd on git

On 2 November 2015 at 20:20, Richard Hipp wrote: > On 11/2/15, Michal Suchanek wrote: >> In fossil you can have multiple checkouts but there is afaik no >> in-fossil tool to jump between them > > The "cd" command (not even a part of fossil) exists in both

Re: [fossil-users] xkcd on git

On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 12:14 PM, Michal Suchanek wrote: > Rewriting history in git is your choice. You can use git without > rewriting. And really, a merge becoming "impossible" does not really > depend on rewriting. If you have conflicting changes you just have > conflicting

Re: [fossil-users] xkcd on git

On 11/2/15, Michal Suchanek wrote: > In fossil you can have multiple checkouts but there is afaik no > in-fossil tool to jump between them The "cd" command (not even a part of fossil) exists in both unix and windows shells and is sufficient to carry you from one check-out to

Re: [fossil-users] xkcd on git

On 02/11/15 19:40, Richard Hipp wrote: On 11/2/15, Michal Suchanek wrote: when you want to separate the changes you want to commit and changes you want to ... keep uncommitted to do more work on them this is quite useful. And don't tell me nobody ever mixes unrelated and

Re: [fossil-users] xkcd on git

On 11/2/15, Michal Suchanek wrote: > > when you > want to separate the changes you want to commit and changes you want > to ... keep uncommitted to do more work on them this is quite > useful. And don't tell me nobody ever mixes unrelated and possibly > conflicting changes in

Re: [fossil-users] xkcd on git

On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 7:00 AM, Konstantin Khomoutov < flatw...@users.sourceforge.net> wrote: > On Sat, 31 Oct 2015 09:53:52 +0100 > Stephan Beal wrote: > > > > Unless you delete .git your checkout is always in well defined > > > state. > > No, it's not. i once literally

Re: [fossil-users] xkcd on git

On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 4:25 AM, Michal Suchanek wrote: > On 31 October 2015 at 23:33, Richard Hipp wrote: > > > > I'll argue that Git is not beneficial even to people who have mastered > > its arcane syntax. Here's why: > > > > In common usage, Git requires

Re: [fossil-users] xkcd on git

On Nov 1, 2015, at 6:09 PM, Ron W wrote: > > On MS Windows, that is how it has to be done. Symlinks require the user be an > admin Yes, but also, you must be running cmd.exe *as* Admin if you have UAC enabled, since the normal cmd.exe window can’t auto-elevate itself. >

Re: [fossil-users] xkcd on git

On 11/2/15, Warren Young wrote: > On Oct 30, 2015, at 11:27 PM, Michal Suchanek wrote: >> >> Unless you delete .git your checkout is always in well defined state. > > Three words: Detached Head State. > Forgot about that one. I amend my earlier disparaging

Re: [fossil-users] xkcd on git

On Nov 2, 2015, at 4:31 PM, Jan Danielsson wrote: > > I don't know which is worse; not supporting symlinks at all on > Windows, or telling people that they need to have administrator > privileges on their system in order to check the code out I agree, which is why

Re: [fossil-users] xkcd on git

On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 5:01 PM, Ron W wrote: > On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 6:38 PM, Scott Robison > wrote: >> >> From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NTFS_symbolic_link#Restrictions: The >> default security settings in Windows Vista/Windows 7 >>

Re: [fossil-users] xkcd on git

On 03/11/15 00:38, Scott Robison wrote: >>> On 11/2/15, Jan Danielsson wrote: Supporting symlinks on Windows would currently be a little mess. >>> >>> What if we just say that symlinks don't work on Windows and that if >>> you include them in your repo, you

Re: [fossil-users] xkcd on git

On 11/2/15, Jan Danielsson wrote: > >Supporting symlinks on Windows would currently be a little mess. What if we just say that symlinks don't work on Windows and that if you include them in your repo, you won't be able to checkout (sanely) on Windows? -- D.

Re: [fossil-users] xkcd on git

On Nov 2, 2015, at 3:56 PM, Richard Hipp wrote: > > On 11/2/15, Jan Danielsson wrote: >> >> Supporting symlinks on Windows would currently be a little mess. > > What if we just say that symlinks don't work on Windows and that if > you include

Re: [fossil-users] xkcd on git

On 03/11/15 00:00, Warren Young wrote: > On Nov 2, 2015, at 3:56 PM, Richard Hipp wrote: >> >> On 11/2/15, Jan Danielsson wrote: >>> >>> Supporting symlinks on Windows would currently be a little mess. >> >> What if we just say that symlinks don't

Re: [fossil-users] xkcd on git

On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 4:00 PM, Warren Young wrote: > On Nov 2, 2015, at 3:56 PM, Richard Hipp wrote: > > > > On 11/2/15, Jan Danielsson wrote: > >> > >> Supporting symlinks on Windows would currently be a little mess. > > > >

Re: [fossil-users] xkcd on git

On Oct 30, 2015, at 11:27 PM, Michal Suchanek wrote: > > Unless you delete .git your checkout is always in well defined state. Three words: Detached Head State. https://www.google.com/?q=detached%20head%20state ___ fossil-users

Re: [fossil-users] xkcd on git

On 02/11/15 23:23, Warren Young wrote: >> Windows will ultimately get decent symlink support. > > I doubt it. Microsoft has tried to take a bite of that apple twice, and > screwed it up both times. > > First there was the Windows 95 *.lnk file feature, which is basically only a > symlink to

Re: [fossil-users] xkcd on git

On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 6:38 PM, Scott Robison wrote: > > From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NTFS_symbolic_link#Restrictions: The > default security settings in Windows Vista/Windows 7 > disallow non-elevated > administrators and

Re: [fossil-users] xkcd on git

On 31 October 2015 at 23:33, Richard Hipp wrote: > On 10/31/15, Matt Welland wrote: >> >> Regarding git, other than it's arcane interface (i) the you are paying in >> learning curve for the additional power that comes from the extra degrees >> of freedom

Re: [fossil-users] xkcd on git

On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 5:21 PM, Jan Danielsson wrote: > On 03/11/15 00:38, Scott Robison wrote: > >>> On 11/2/15, Jan Danielsson wrote: > > Supporting symlinks on Windows would currently be a little mess. > >>> > >>> What if we

Re: [fossil-users] xkcd on git

On Sat, Oct 31, 2015 at 10:19 PM, Matt Welland wrote: > On Sat, Oct 31, 2015 at 1:47 PM, Stephan Beal > wrote: > >> On Sat, Oct 31, 2015 at 9:41 PM, Matt Welland >> wrote: >> >>> BTW, to some extent it is ok for fossil to

Re: [fossil-users] xkcd on git

On Sun, Nov 1, 2015 at 4:14 AM, Stephan Beal wrote: > But if it only stores a pointer, and requires the user to reconstruct the > link, it's not terribly useful/friendly. The user would potentially have to > replace fossil's placeholder pseudosymlink file with a link of

Re: [fossil-users] xkcd on git

On Sun, Nov 1, 2015 at 2:14 AM, Stephan Beal wrote: > On Sat, Oct 31, 2015 at 10:19 PM, Matt Welland > wrote: > >> On Sat, Oct 31, 2015 at 1:47 PM, Stephan Beal >> wrote: >> >>> On Sat, Oct 31, 2015 at 9:41 PM, Matt Welland

Re: [fossil-users] xkcd on git

On Nov 1, 2015 6:09 PM, "Ron W" wrote: > > On Sun, Nov 1, 2015 at 4:14 AM, Stephan Beal wrote: >> >> But if it only stores a pointer, and requires the user to reconstruct the link, it's not terribly useful/friendly. The user would potentially have to

Re: [fossil-users] xkcd on git

On Sat, Oct 31, 2015 at 6:27 AM, Michal Suchanek wrote: > Unless you delete .git your checkout is always in well defined state. > No, it's not. i once literally had one of the libgit maintainers at my desk for a full hour trying to get my repo (of a project we were both

Re: [fossil-users] xkcd on git

Hmmm I'm in a loquacious sort of mood and this spiel got long so I'm adding a summary blurb, I recommend read the blurb and skip the rest. Summary: Modest needs of a lone developer not doing branching etc. can be met with file system based methodology. Even so IMHO an SCM is still a

Re: [fossil-users] xkcd on git

On Sat, Oct 31, 2015 at 6:45 PM, Matt Welland wrote: > Modest needs of a lone developer not doing branching etc. can be met with > file system based methodology. Even so IMHO an SCM is still a productively > booster once learned. > +1 > s quite doable. For someone who

Re: [fossil-users] xkcd on git

On Sub, 2015-10-31 at 14:21 +0100, Jan Danielsson wrote: >    No.  I had a checkout of a repository which was working fine.  One > day I suddenly couldn't do things I have been doing all along with it > (uncomplicated daily tasks; pull, commit, merge); git told me that my > repository was broken. 

Re: [fossil-users] xkcd on git

On Sat, Oct 31, 2015 at 11:33 AM, Stephan Beal wrote: > On Sat, Oct 31, 2015 at 6:45 PM, Matt Welland > wrote: > > [snip] > (i) Is fossil that much less arcane? Last I checked mv, cp and rm don't >> work the same as Unix, an ongoing annoyance for

Re: [fossil-users] xkcd on git

On Sat, Oct 31, 2015 at 1:47 PM, Stephan Beal wrote: > On Sat, Oct 31, 2015 at 9:41 PM, Matt Welland > wrote: > >> BTW, to some extent it is ok for fossil to be opinionated software that >> strives to dictate how to do your work. However take that

Re: [fossil-users] xkcd on git

On Sat, Oct 31, 2015 at 9:41 PM, Matt Welland wrote: > BTW, to some extent it is ok for fossil to be opinionated software that > strives to dictate how to do your work. However take that model very far > and you quickly alienate people. Given that perspective, why would

Re: [fossil-users] xkcd on git

On 31/10/15 06:27, Michal Suchanek wrote: [---] >> (For instance, my recent thread about how to clip off a a branch via the >> command line when the UI can’t do it because it was created empty, something >> Fossil can’t do, but which apparently CVS or SVN can, so it got into my >> Fossil tree

Re: [fossil-users] xkcd on git

Which is why I like my process. Redundancy is good. Not dependent on some algorithm to piece things back together. Disks are so frikkin large now that it is not an issue to have multiple copies of the same file. If one set gets corrupted, just use the one behind it. Fully self contained

Re: [fossil-users] xkcd on git

On 10/31/15, Matt Welland wrote: > > Regarding git, other than it's arcane interface (i) the you are paying in > learning curve for the additional power that comes from the extra degrees > of freedom it provides. A developer willing to invest the time to deeply >

Re: [fossil-users] xkcd on git

Thus said Scott Doctor on Sat, 31 Oct 2015 09:45:07 -0700: > Which is why I like my process. Redundancy is good. Not dependent on > some algorithm to piece things back together. Disks are so frikkin > large now that it is not an issue to have multiple copies of the same > file. If one set

Re: [fossil-users] xkcd on git

Thus said Matt Welland on Sat, 31 Oct 2015 10:45:33 -0700: > The other benefit git offers is impressive performance. How git can > report extras 2x faster than a Unix find command covering the same > directory tree and 10x faster than fossil is nothing short of amazing. One of the most

Re: [fossil-users] xkcd on git

I did not say I did not use version control. By VCS I refer to the programs such as fossil, git, mercurial... used for doing such. I am using Fossil for my current project in parallel with my own way of handling versions. Embarcadero RAD Studio incorporates Git, Mercurial, and Subversion

Re: [fossil-users] xkcd on git

​"​ Even with fossil, I am having trouble justifying why the hassle is worth the effort. ​" ​ Sorry, but the alternatives ​(I have a Halloween shudder at the thought)​ ​are way more effort in the long run.​ I agree, merging is difficult when there are conflicts. But, Fossil and others show your

Re: [fossil-users] xkcd on git

On Oct 30, 2015, at 2:37 PM, Scott Doctor wrote: > > Embarcadero RAD Studio incorporates Git, Mercurial, and Subversion into the > IDE. Yes, it would be nicer if more IDEs had Fossil plugins. That said, I always have a terminal window up, cd’d into the project, so even

Re: [fossil-users] xkcd on git

On Oct 30, 2015 21:37, "Scott Doctor" wrote: > > > What I meant was I end up spending much time trying to get the tools to do what I want it to do versus how it wants to do it. i would argue that that's backwards (and possibly the source of your frustration with SCM).

Re: [fossil-users] xkcd on git

On 30 October 2015 at 23:19, Warren Young wrote: > On Oct 30, 2015, at 2:37 PM, Scott Doctor wrote: >> >> Embarcadero RAD Studio incorporates Git, Mercurial, and Subversion into the >> IDE. > > Yes, it would be nicer if more IDEs had Fossil plugins. > >

Re: [fossil-users] xkcd on git

On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 6:05 PM, Eric Rubin-Smith wrote: > I suspect Fossil folks will appreciate this :-) > > http://xkcd.com/1597/ > > http://fossil-scm.org/index.html/info/227b837a6c686972 :) -- - stephan beal http://wanderinghorse.net/home/stephan/

[fossil-users] xkcd on git

I suspect Fossil folks will appreciate this :-) http://xkcd.com/1597/ Eric ___ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users

Re: [fossil-users] xkcd on git

On Pet, 2015-10-30 at 21:33 +0300, Konstantin Khomoutov wrote: > I'm a programmer, and after having used a bunch of centralized and > distributed VC systems I've come to a temporary conclusion that the > set of problems [D]VC systems are trying to solve has certain > irreducible complexity, and

Re: [fossil-users] xkcd on git

It is sort of the "Lightbulb Problem": Scenario 1: I want to design a lightbulb. So I study metallurgy, thermodynamics, electronics, manufacturing processes... Study what others succeded/failed at,... and so forth. Scenario 2: I want to use that lightbulb in my project. I only need to

Re: [fossil-users] xkcd on git

That is my experience with all VCS systems. Even with fossil, I am having trouble justifying why the hassle is worth the effort. Scott Doctor sc...@scottdoctor.com -- On 10/30/2015 10:07 AM, Stephan Beal wrote: On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 6:05 PM, Eric Rubin-Smith

Re: [fossil-users] xkcd on git

On Fri, 30 Oct 2015 10:56:48 -0700 Scott Doctor wrote: > That is my experience with all VCS systems. Even with fossil, I > am having trouble justifying why the hassle is worth the effort. I'm honestly not flame-baiting but have you tried to come up with an interface

Re: [fossil-users] xkcd on git

On 10/30/15, Scott Doctor wrote: > > That is my experience with all VCS systems. Even with fossil, I > am having trouble justifying why the hassle is worth the effort. > What do you do when a customer calls to ask about code you sent them 18 months ago? How do you figure

Re: [fossil-users] xkcd on git

On 30 October 2015 at 10:56, Scott Doctor wrote: > That is my experience with all VCS systems. Even with fossil, I am having > trouble justifying why the hassle is worth the effort. I version control config files for apps, .vimrc files, and small scripts just so I can see