On Fri, 27 Mar 2015 18:06:34 +0100, bch <brad.har...@gmail.com> wrote:
Without further information 1) reminds me of quick edits whereby the
timestamp (fossils "cheap" way of discovering change) may not have
chnanged ? The foolproof ("expensive") way of determining changes is
to checksum ea. file (ie: fossil changes --sha1sum)
I agree, it could be related to something like that, but ...
What are the conditions that you're editing under, or is there
anything that may be advancing the timestamp outside your initial
(failed-to-commit) edits ?
wouldn't know how this should have happened: these were small edits but
sure not performed within one second or whatever the granularity of the
timestamp is. I'll have to wait and see whether the problem comes back. in
this case I will try to investigate it more thoroughly. in any case
problem no. 2 is more irritating. I have no idea how fossil could accept
the checkin locally without propagating the checkin to the remote url
despite 'autosync on' and without throwing an error...
joerg
-bch
On 3/27/15, j. van den hoff <veedeeh...@googlemail.com> wrote:
hi list,
I have encountered a strange behaviour (of course right now no longer
reproducible ...).
setup:
-- ssh-transport, all permissions fine
-- local clone configured to use 'autosync'
-- locally running some variant of 1.32, remotely of 1.31 (so updated
recently)
-- two year old repos (so definitely created with distinctly older
versions of fossil)
now for the "ufos":
1.
yesterday I tried `fossil ci' after some edits which led to a silent
return to the prompt without any actions having been taken. only after 2
further tries the editor popped up for entering the ci message and the
ci
actually proceeded (and also propated to the server as it should, given
the `autosync' setting
2.
today I did 2 checkins just fine (seemingly) including getting the
autosync-related messages generated by fossil. but after the checkin the
changes had not propagated to the remote repo. I had to do an explicit
"push" to get the changes there.
In a couple of years using fossil I have never encountered something
like
this. any ideas what might be going on here?
thx/j
--
Using Opera's revolutionary email client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
_______________________________________________
fossil-users mailing list
fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org
http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
_______________________________________________
fossil-users mailing list
fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org
http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
--
Using Opera's revolutionary email client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
_______________________________________________
fossil-users mailing list
fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org
http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
