[fossil-users] fossil unversioned export * (support globbing)

fossil unversioned is a welcome feature as it allows me to put large binary test files in my repo without my .fossil file exploding in size every time the test files change. However, it is currently handicapped by not being able to pull unversioned multiple files in a reasonable way. There was

Re: [fossil-users] Bug in "fossil branch new"

I think there is merit to this thought but I'd be careful. There is a risk of drowning important information which would do the opposite of helping "newbies". On Tue, Feb 7, 2017 at 10:24 AM, Richard Hipp wrote: > On 2/7/17, Andy Bradford wrote: > > >

Re: [fossil-users] Bug in "fossil branch new"

If you're avoiding "fossil branch new" because it doesn't automatically switch and you got confused about the behavior doesn't that help show that it makes sense to automatically switch by default? I think the most "logical" design would be for the behavior of both branch creation methods to

Re: [fossil-users] Bug in "fossil branch new"

On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 11:13 AM, Richard Hipp wrote: > > > > > After the second "fossil commit --branch myfirstbranch" no new branch is > > created, commited to the same branch as the after the first "fossil > commit > > --branch myfirstbranch" > > Actually, it did create a new

Re: [fossil-users] Bug in "fossil branch new"

Haha, please disregard my previous message. You posted while I was still typing the other. Your action will mostly take care of the issue. Thank you for considering my situation. If I may ask though, if autosync is off how would the situation of two developers creating a branch by the same name

Re: [fossil-users] Bug in "fossil branch new"

; thinking they are committing to the branch they just opened. On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 2:08 PM, john lunzer <lun...@gmail.com> wrote: > Haha, please disregard my previous message. You posted while I was still > typing the other. Your action will mostly take care of the issue. Thank you > for cons

Re: [fossil-users] Bug in "fossil branch new"

A warning would minimally address the issue but there would still be a behavioral inconsistency with "fossil commit --branch" which does automatically move you into the new branch. This inconsistency opens the door to confusion. That said, I think both "fossil branch new" and "fossil commit

[fossil-users] Bug in "fossil branch new"

Here is the test sequence: cd fossils fossil new testrepo.fossil mkdir ../testrepo cd ../testrepo fossil open ../fossils/testrepo.fossil fossil branch new myfirstbranch trunk fossil commit --allow-empty --branch myfirstbranch -m "A new branch" fossil commit --allow-empty --branch myfirstbranch

Re: [fossil-users] A way to relative link to other fossil repositories

.org> > Subject: Re: [fossil-users] A way to relative link to other fossil > repositories > > On 1/25/17, john lunzer <lun...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > I would like to create a homepage for all of my repos by using another > > fossil which is also in my fossils

[fossil-users] A way to relative link to other fossil repositories

I am serving my repos with a directory like so: fossil server --repolist /home/Users/jlunz/fossils I would like to create a homepage for all of my repos by using another fossil which is also in my fossils directory, lets call that homepage.fossil for now. I'm looking for a way to link to the