Re: [fossil-dev] finfo.c cleanup (unused variables)
2017-11-30 12:03 GMT+01:00 Johan Kuuse <jo...@kuu.se>: > Hi, > > Patch removing unused variables in finfo.c. Thanks! <http://www.fossil-scm.org/index.html/info/c699e9fedf918eb8> Regards, Jan Nijtmans ___ fossil-dev mailing list fossil-dev@mailinglists.sqlite.org http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-dev
Re: [fossil-dev] Time for a 2.4 release?
2017-10-30 1:44 GMT+01:00 Richard Hipp: > Version 2.3 has been out for a while. The change log for 2.4 looks > like it is about the right length. I propose to do an official > release soon. Objections? +1. Everything is fine, I don't have any outstanding issues. Regards, Jan Nijtmans ___ fossil-dev mailing list fossil-dev@mailinglists.sqlite.org http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-dev
Re: [fossil-dev] tip of branch-2.3 linking issue
2017-08-24 17:09 GMT+02:00 Martin Gagnon:
> I tried to compile the top of branch-2.3 and found that I get the
> following linking error:
Thanks for reminding me. Was too quick Should be fixed now.
Regards,
Jan Nijtmans
___
fossil-dev mailing list
fossil-dev@mailinglists.sqlite.org
http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-dev
Re: [fossil-dev] Git Tag comments, again [Was: Proposed roadmap for Fossil 2.0]
2017-03-31 17:04 GMT+02:00 Richard Hipp: > I don't understand the details of this issue, but my instinct would be > to use the T card to avoid an incompatibility. Thanks! Does that mean that the "jn-export" branch can be merged to trunk? Then GIT tag comments will sync with fossil, both ways. Regards, Jan Nijtmans > > On 3/31/17, Jan Nijtmans <jan.nijtm...@gmail.com> wrote: >> 2017-03-30 21:24 GMT+02:00 Richard Hipp: >>> On 3/30/17, Jan Nijtmans <jan.nijtm...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> Ping .Could this be decided for Fossil 2.2? Please? >>> >>> libfossil is a non-trivial undertaking. Because of the way Fossil is >>> currently architected, libfossil is basically a ground-up rewrite. >> >> Hm. My question had no relation to libfossil, it was related to this >> requested feature: >> >> <https://www.mail-archive.com/fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org/msg24595.html> >> >> Allowing Git tag comments is already implemented by Roy Marples, and I >> modified it a little bit. The question is: Should a 'C' card be used for the >> tag comments (which causes a format incompatibility), or should we use >> the - already existing - 'T' card. >> >> It's just a matter of deciding which would be best, Roy and I differ in >> opinion. So, Richard, if you indicate which version "roy-export" or >> "jn-export" you prefer, then that's one less hurdle for GIT people >> to switch to fossil ;-) Would be nice for fossil 2.2 anyway. >> >> Details can be found in the above link to the fossil-users mailing list. >> >> Thanks, >> Jan Nijtmans >> ___ >> fossil-dev mailing list >> fossil-dev@mailinglists.sqlite.org >> http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-dev >> > > > -- > D. Richard Hipp > d...@sqlite.org > ___ > fossil-dev mailing list > fossil-dev@mailinglists.sqlite.org > http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-dev ___ fossil-dev mailing list fossil-dev@mailinglists.sqlite.org http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-dev
[fossil-dev] Git Tag comments, again [Was: Proposed roadmap for Fossil 2.0]
2017-03-30 21:24 GMT+02:00 Richard Hipp: > On 3/30/17, Jan Nijtmans <jan.nijtm...@gmail.com> wrote: >> Ping .Could this be decided for Fossil 2.2? Please? > > libfossil is a non-trivial undertaking. Because of the way Fossil is > currently architected, libfossil is basically a ground-up rewrite. Hm. My question had no relation to libfossil, it was related to this requested feature: <https://www.mail-archive.com/fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org/msg24595.html> Allowing Git tag comments is already implemented by Roy Marples, and I modified it a little bit. The question is: Should a 'C' card be used for the tag comments (which causes a format incompatibility), or should we use the - already existing - 'T' card. It's just a matter of deciding which would be best, Roy and I differ in opinion. So, Richard, if you indicate which version "roy-export" or "jn-export" you prefer, then that's one less hurdle for GIT people to switch to fossil ;-) Would be nice for fossil 2.2 anyway. Details can be found in the above link to the fossil-users mailing list. Thanks, Jan Nijtmans ___ fossil-dev mailing list fossil-dev@mailinglists.sqlite.org http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-dev
Re: [fossil-dev] Fwd: The results of your email commands
Op 18 okt. 2016 8:00 a.m. schreef "Stephan Beal": > Fyi, the "too many bounces" problem is now apparently hitting gmail users. AFAIK gmail never bounces. Yeah, I got it too ... Regards, Jan Nijtmans ___ fossil-dev mailing list fossil-dev@mailinglists.sqlite.org http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-dev
Re: [fossil-dev] Time to release version 1.35?
2016-06-10 16:01 GMT+02:00 Richard Hipp: > Any objections to cutting the Fossil 1.35 release sometime early next week? Not at all! A look at at least the "reparent" and "andygoth-import" branches would be appreciated. Regards, Jan Nijtmans ___ fossil-dev mailing list fossil-dev@mailinglists.sqlite.org http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-dev
Re: [fossil-dev] Check-in etiquette
2015-08-27 9:33 GMT+02:00 Baruch Burstein bmburst...@gmail.com: Hi, I know that when making changes to makemake.tcl, I am expected to run the script to generate the new makefiles and check them in as well. However, I am on a computer where I cannot easily install TCL (company policy). I committed the changes to makemake.tcl without regenerating the makefiles, leaving that to someone else. Is this acceptable? Joe already correct that: http://www.fossil-scm.org/index.html/info/e947fce957171e44 Thanks! The only potential problem: people might wonder how you tested the change. In this case, your change works fine and looks good to me. Joe apparently agreed with this change, I agree as well. Well done! Regards, Jan Nijtmans ___ fossil-dev mailing list fossil-dev@mailinglists.sqlite.org http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-dev
Re: [fossil-dev] [Q] Update .ignore-glob to include build artifacts on Linux
Op 16 aug. 2015 19:45 schreef Chris Drexler ckolum...@ac-drexler.de het volgende: I overlooked that those files would not get cleaned up either then :-(. It is possible to set ignore-glob as you suggest and still do a full clean: just use fossil clean -x. That's what I use in my repositories. fossil clean only removes temporary files, log files and other files like that, not files specified with ignore-glob. fossil clean and, fossil clean -x are functionally similar to the corresponding GIT commands, if you set ignore-glob as you would set GIT's .gitignore. It's a choice whether you want to use ignore-glob like that or not. Regards, Jan Nijtmans ___ fossil-dev mailing list fossil-dev@mailinglists.sqlite.org http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-dev
Re: [fossil-dev] svn-import branch
2015-02-24 10:09 GMT+01:00 Jan Nijtmans jan.nijtm...@gmail.com: Both branches are IMHO ready to be merged to trunk, that's the best way to get them tested by more people. Any objections, merging the svn-import branch to trunk? Regards, Jan Nijtmans ___ fossil-dev mailing list fossil-dev@mailinglists.sqlite.org http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-dev
