On Mar 30, 2017, at 11:34 PM, The Tick <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> I went to admin->timeline and checked "allow block markup"
>
> I went to wiki->Formatting rules->Markdown wiki.
According to an earlier post, it uses some variant on Fossil Wiki markup, not
Markdown.
It doesn’t seem to be complete. Attempts to get bullets here don’t work, for
example. I suppose that’s what it means by “block markup.” That is, it is a
subset of Fossil Wiki, not complete markup support.
The more typical way to get paragraph breaks and such in timeline comments is
to simply write your checkin comments with hard line breaks, then with this
setting enabled, you can adjust your CSS to use <pre> style whitespace handling:
https://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg14620.html
> I've used RCS in the past for my personal projects. I'm used to making a
> simple list of the changes for a particular file and then doing a 'ci' for
> that file.
If you’re saying that you want to do ASCII-style formatting of comments, then I
think the above solution will work for you.
> When I reached a point where I considered the project "done" for the time
> being, I tagged all the files with an ID.
I have rarely found myself wanting when it comes to Fossil’s support for
tagging.
You can tag on commit with “fossil ci --tag”, or you can apply tags after the
fact with either Fossil UI or “fossil tag”.
> Perhaps my "rcs" thinking is obsolete.
I never used RCS, but I did use CVS exclusively for years, which is built on
the same concepts, and I’ve found the changes in each step from CVS ->
Subversion -> Fossil to be quite sensible. You might have a harder time than I
did with the transition, because you’re jumping so many steps.
If you don’t see that that is a logical progression, Subversion was designed to
replace CVS, fixing its faults while retaining its simplicity of use, and I
find that Fossil shares most of Subversion’s usability sensibility while fixing
Subversion’s weaknesses in the same way.
About the only advantage Subversion holds over Fossil is the same one any
centralized VCS has over a DVCS: sometimes you don’t want to clone the entire
repository just to check out the code. For small repositories, it’s a
difference without a distinction in practice, except that the
clone-and-checkout process takes a few more steps.
_______________________________________________
fossil-users mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
