Re: [fossil-users] Unversioned files not accessible from Webinterface

On 2/22/17, Tony Papadimitriou wrote: > Unless the repo visitor happens > to magically know about this /uvlist link there seems to be no obvious way > to get to it starting navigation from some main page. That is by design. The intent is that the repository designer will create a

Re: [fossil-users] Unversioned files not accessible from Webinterface

Thank you for the tip, good to know. (However, I think my point is still valid. Unless the repo visitor happens to magically know about this /uvlist link there seems to be no obvious way to get to it starting navigation from some main page.) From: Martin Gagnon To see the list of unversioned

Re: [fossil-users] Unversioned files not accessible from Web interface

Sorry my bad, I was confused because on the main page the footer of the page shows 1.34, but I just notice that when going inside one repository it's 1.36. -- Martin G. Le mer. 22 févr. 2017 à 11:45, Roy Keene a écrit : > ChiselApp runs Fossil 1.36 currently, not 1.34.

Re: [fossil-users] Unversioned files not accessible from Web interface

ChiselApp runs Fossil 1.36 currently, not 1.34. On Wed, 22 Feb 2017, Martin Gagnon wrote: Le mer. 22 févr. 2017 à 03:33, Tony Papadimitriou a écrit : I placed some unversioned file to a chiselapp repo I maintain and then from the Web UI tried to locate the file but

Re: [fossil-users] Unversioned files not accessible from Web interface

Le mer. 22 févr. 2017 à 03:33, Tony Papadimitriou a écrit : > I placed some unversioned file to a chiselapp repo I maintain and then > from the Web UI tried to locate the file but without luck. > There isn’t even a hint that some unversioned file is in the repo, so that > one can

Re: [fossil-users] Unversioned files.

Really like unversioned files feature. On windows you can't do 'fossil uv add ajax\index.html', only forward slashes will work. Which is okay, but I'd prefer fossil to do slash replacing. On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 9:31 PM, Richard Hipp wrote: > A new feature of Fossil (currently

Re: [fossil-users] Unversioned files.

On 09/12/2016 02:55 PM, Ross Berteig wrote: > Clumsy, perhaps, but it would work today. Thanks. The `fossil fusefs ...` performance kills the possibility of using Fossil as a large binary file repository manager. I find myself casually reading "Practical File System Design"[1] and the HDF5

Re: [fossil-users] Unversioned files.

On 9/12/2016 5:59 AM, Ron W wrote: On Sun, Sep 11, 2016 at 12:18 PM, Adam Jensen > wrote: The phrase "ephemeral content" is a bit disconcerting. It suggests values and attitudes towards this data which will probably be reflected in the

Re: [fossil-users] Unversioned files.

On Sun, Sep 11, 2016 at 12:18 PM, Adam Jensen wrote: > > The phrase "ephemeral content" is a bit disconcerting. It suggests > values and attitudes towards this data which will probably be reflected > in the requirements, specification, and implementation of the software. > > In

Re: [fossil-users] Unversioned files.

On 09/11/2016 05:30 PM, Stephan Beal wrote: > And i would argue against it as falling well out of scope for an SCM ;) I'm okay with that. ___ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org

Re: [fossil-users] Unversioned files.

On 09/11/2016 06:38 PM, Scott Robison wrote: > Of course, adding differentiation and specialization increases > complexity, so it can be a tricky balancing act. We, as a species, have already gone down that rabbit hole. ___ fossil-users mailing list

Re: [fossil-users] Unversioned files.

On Sun, Sep 11, 2016 at 3:27 PM, Adam Jensen wrote: > On 09/11/2016 04:42 PM, Scott Robison wrote: > > I may not be understanding you, but from my point of view, it already > > does what you want by supporting versioned files that you simply never > > change. For example, you

Re: [fossil-users] Unversioned files.

On Sep 11, 2016 21:49, "Adam Jensen" wrote: > > On 09/11/2016 01:54 PM, Stephan Beal wrote: > > On Sep 11, 2016 18:18, "Adam Jensen" > > wrote: > [snip] > >> ''' > >> 5.4 Unversioned File Sync > >> > >> "Unversioned files" are

Re: [fossil-users] Unversioned files.

On 09/11/2016 04:42 PM, Scott Robison wrote: > I may not be understanding you, but from my point of view, it already > does what you want by supporting versioned files that you simply never > change. For example, you could have a repo that has a structure along > the lines of: > >

Re: [fossil-users] Unversioned files.

On Sun, Sep 11, 2016 at 1:49 PM, Adam Jensen wrote: > On 09/11/2016 01:54 PM, Stephan Beal wrote: > > On Sep 11, 2016 18:18, "Adam Jensen" > > wrote: > [snip] > >> ''' > >> 5.4 Unversioned File Sync > >> > >> "Unversioned files"

Re: [fossil-users] Unversioned files.

On 09/11/2016 01:54 PM, Stephan Beal wrote: > On Sep 11, 2016 18:18, "Adam Jensen" > wrote: [snip] >> ''' >> 5.4 Unversioned File Sync >> >> "Unversioned files" are files held in the repository where only the most >> recent version of the file is kept

Re: [fossil-users] Unversioned files.

On Sep 11, 2016 18:18, "Adam Jensen" wrote: > > On 09/11/2016 05:41 AM, Stephan Beal wrote: > > On Sep 10, 2016 19:31, "Adam Jensen" > > wrote: > >> 1. What is the largest size of any single file that can be checked into > >> a

Re: [fossil-users] Unversioned files.

On 09/11/2016 05:41 AM, Stephan Beal wrote: > On Sep 10, 2016 19:31, "Adam Jensen" > wrote: >> 1. What is the largest size of any single file that can be checked into >> a repository? > > effectively limited by system memory: fossil needs approx. 2-3x

Re: [fossil-users] Unversioned files.

On Sep 10, 2016 19:31, "Adam Jensen" wrote: > 1. What is the largest size of any single file that can be checked into > a repository? effectively limited by system memory: fossil needs approx. 2-3x the file's size (concurrently in RAM) to create/apply deltas. > 2. How well

Re: [fossil-users] Unversioned files.

On 09/10/2016 01:31 PM, Adam Jensen wrote: [snip] > 1. What is the largest size of any single file that can be checked into > a repository? [snip] I did some tests with Fossil trunk, checked-out and compiled today. too big: dd if=/dev/urandom of=1GB-file.test bs=64M count=16 too big: dd

Re: [fossil-users] Unversioned files.

On 09/09/2016 10:20 PM, Richard Hipp wrote: > On 9/9/16, Adam Jensen wrote: >> On 09/05/2016 05:23 PM, Adam Jensen wrote: >>> B. I suspect the storage requirement will be twice (2x) the data size - >>> the data is stored once in the Fossil database and another copy would >>>

Re: [fossil-users] Unversioned files.

On 9/9/16, Adam Jensen wrote: > On 09/05/2016 05:23 PM, Adam Jensen wrote: >> B. I suspect the storage requirement will be twice (2x) the data size - >> the data is stored once in the Fossil database and another copy would >> exist in the file-system [as a check-out]. > > I

Re: [fossil-users] Unversioned files.

On 09/05/2016 05:23 PM, Adam Jensen wrote: > B. I suspect the storage requirement will be twice (2x) the data size - > the data is stored once in the Fossil database and another copy would > exist in the file-system [as a check-out]. I wonder if it would be nifty if Fossil could export a set (or

Re: [fossil-users] Unversioned files.

On 09/05/2016 03:00 AM, Gour wrote: [snip] > Now, when I got rid of ownCloud and replaced it with something lighter > to sync my calendars/contacts with the phone, I plan to manually cp-ing > media files to my computer and considering to put all those > photos/videos as unversioned files in a

Re: [fossil-users] Unversioned files.

On Fri, 2 Sep 2016 13:05:43 -0400 Richard Hipp wrote: > At the moment, unversioned files are not part of the check-out. So > this is a feature. OK. Thank you. Now, when I got rid of ownCloud and replaced it with something lighter to sync my calendars/contacts with the phone,

Re: [fossil-users] Unversioned files.

Adam Jensen decía, en el mensaje "Re: [fossil-users] Unversioned files." del 3/9/2016 09:27:05: > a next step might be to track, > manage, and share items in the file-system that are not actually stored > in the repository database file; an example might be media files or H

Re: [fossil-users] Unversioned files.

On 09/02/2016 01:05 PM, Richard Hipp wrote: [snip] > I have the request to optionally include unversioned files in the > check-out. But that is not yet implemented. Super cool. Not to hijack this thread but a next step might be to track, manage, and share items in the file-system that are not

Re: [fossil-users] Unversioned files.

On 9/2/16, Gour wrote: > On Tue, 30 Aug 2016 14:31:06 -0400 > Richard Hipp wrote: > >> Your feedback on this new feature is appreciated. > > I've added one whole directory with several subfolders (via shell > scripting) and an see them with 'fossil unver ls'.

Re: [fossil-users] Unversioned files.

On Tue, 30 Aug 2016 14:31:06 -0400 Richard Hipp wrote: > Your feedback on this new feature is appreciated. I've added one whole directory with several subfolders (via shell scripting) and an see them with 'fossil unver ls'. However, the same set of files is also listed as

Re: [fossil-users] Unversioned files.

On Tue, 30 Aug 2016 14:31:06 -0400 Richard Hipp wrote: > Your feedback on this new feature is appreciated. What about ability to add the whole directory containing unversioned files? I used (fish)shell scripting to do it, but still... Sincerely, Gour -- A person who is not

Re: [fossil-users] Unversioned files.

My use case is similar to what Adam describes. I already wrote a mail about this some time ago, but as I was absent last month, I couldn’t look at this feature in more detail until now. To reiterate, we use Fossil for collaborative paper writing. There are a lot of supplementary data that is

Re: [fossil-users] Unversioned files.

On 08/30/2016 02:31 PM, Richard Hipp wrote: > A new feature of Fossil (currently unreleased and only available to > people who are willing to recompile the code on trunk) is "unversioned > files". > > https://www.fossil-scm.org/fossil/doc/trunk/www/unvers.wiki Hey, cool. This seems like a

Re: [fossil-users] Unversioned files.

kamloops$ fossil unver revert assertion "uvStatus==2" failed: file "./src/xfer.c", line 1893, function "client_sync" [1] Abort trap (core dumped) fossil unver revert kamloops$ On 8/30/16, bch wrote: > On 8/30/16, sky5w...@gmail.com wrote: >> This is

Re: [fossil-users] Unversioned files.

On 8/30/16, sky5w...@gmail.com wrote: > This is a welcome addition to house nuisance files like bitmaps, icons, > etc. > But, I am confused by the in-out nomenclature? > > Push to remote: fossil unversioned sync > Pull from remote: fossil unversioned revert > Checkout

Re: [fossil-users] Unversioned files.

This is a welcome addition to house nuisance files like bitmaps, icons, etc. But, I am confused by the in-out nomenclature? Push to remote: fossil unversioned sync Pull from remote: fossil unversioned revert Checkout unv files: fossil unversioned export FILE //1 at a time? If we have the