[Default] On Wed, 11 Sep 2013 22:58:56 +0200, Stephan Beal <[email protected]> wrote:
>Hi, all, > >Once 1.27 officially goes out the door, i plan on pulling the new 'usage' >command into the trunk (for 1.28). My question to you is: is there anyone >who finds the idea of fossil recording which commands (not their arguments) >and the times of their usage in the local checkout database offensive or >insecure? These data are _only_ local to the current checkout and are never >synchronized. The 'usage' command is only intended for informal personal >statistics gathering, and not for spying on developer's activity within a >given tree (that would be possible if devs have access to each others' >checkout directories). I wouldn't mind logging the arguments as well, especially for commands that modify the repository or a stash. I wouldn't be interested in logging query-class commands, like fossil ls, fossil status, fossil timeline >If you don't find the idea offensive/abusive, you needn't say anything. If >you do, please voice your concerns. If there is sufficient outcry i'll drop >that branch instead of integrating it. If we do decide to add it, i will >add a config option to toggle it on and off (disabled by default). > >PS: feel free to suggest a better command name than 'usage'. 'history' >would be the obvious choice (due to it's analog in Unix shells), but that >command name potentially has better uses in a future fossil version, so i >don't want to steal that one. usage -> commandtrace or commandhistory or cmdtrace or cmdhistory Note: on Linux/unix, it doesn't add much, history [-OPTIONS] | grep fossil will do fine, on MS Windows, I think it really adds value. -- Groet, Cordialement, Pozdrawiam, Regards, Kees Nuyt _______________________________________________ fossil-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
