[fossil-users] Work flow with fossil (understanding conflict resolution)
Hello, In order to figure out how to do conflict resolution with fossil, I created a new repository 'central', I added a file to it, then cloned the repository into 'clone1' and 'clone2'. I switched off autosync from all three repositories, then I modified the the same line in central, clone1 and clone2, and committed the changes. Next, I opened the clone1 repository and tried to push it to central: $ cd test $ fossil open ../clone1 [..checked out main.c..] $ fossil push ../central Now, coming from bazaar I half-expected it to say something along the line of Your local copy is outdated, please update from central, resolve the conflicts and then push again.. However, instead I got some stats, no error, and it was done (looked very much like what happens when push is successful). But switching to central showed that nothing has changed (no entries in the timeline). I also tried pull and sync (the last which gave slightly more statistics, but no other differences). I was pretty certain the pull operation would say that there were conflicts to resolve, but it didn't. (The plan was to solve the conflict between clone1 and central. Then redo the same procedure between clone2 and central). I suspect that the problem is that my brain is currently too much locked into bazaar-mode. Anyone care to explain the basic work flow required to force a conflict resolution? (Or a link to a site which explains a typical work flow illustrating conflict resolution?) I am using fossil version [1d93222627] 2011-03-01 19:04:32 UTC on NetBSD/amd64 5.0, in case it's relevant, though I assume it's not. Thankful for any clarifications on what basic fossil concepts I have missed. :) ___ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
[fossil-users] Clone Error over network
All, Since this is my first post, I would like to say how much I like Fossil. I discovered Fossil about 4 month ago, did some initial testing and recommended it for use on our many small projects. It is now used on 6 different projects. The other day one of our developers accidentally checked in a large zip file of about 160 meg. After that the repository could not be cloned successfully over the network. I ran the following scenario as a test using an XP 64 machine with Apache 2 running Fossil as a CGI. I used the latest windows fossil.exe from the downloads. I created a new repository and began filling it with items. I was able to clone this repository successfully till it got to about 325 meg. At that point the client attempting the clone reaches 98.7% complete and up pops the windows dialog saying fossil.exe has encountered a problem and needs to close. If I work with the repository locally I can still use it and continue to add artifacts. The network clone simply will not complete successfully. I tested an older fossil.exe from Feb. by creating yet another repository and using fossil.exe server repo.fossil as the server. The clone does not complete in the this scenario either. Is there something about the networking I am missing? What can I do to help find the problem? Network Cloning is pretty key to our operation. Thanks, Tony Jefferson ___ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
Re: [fossil-users] Work flow with fossil (understanding conflict resolution)
On Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 5:58 AM, Jan Danielsson jan.m.daniels...@gmail.com wrote: Hello, In order to figure out how to do conflict resolution with fossil, I created a new repository 'central', I added a file to it, then cloned the repository into 'clone1' and 'clone2'. I switched off autosync from all three repositories, then I modified the the same line in central, clone1 and clone2, and committed the changes. Next, I opened the clone1 repository and tried to push it to central: $ cd test $ fossil open ../clone1 [..checked out main.c..] $ fossil push ../central Now, coming from bazaar I half-expected it to say something along the line of Your local copy is outdated, please update from central, resolve the conflicts and then push again.. However, instead I got some stats, no error, and it was done (looked very much like what happens when push is successful). But switching to central showed that nothing has changed (no entries in the timeline). I also tried pull and sync (the last which gave slightly more statistics, but no other differences). I was pretty certain the pull operation would say that there were conflicts to resolve, but it didn't. (The plan was to solve the conflict between clone1 and central. Then redo the same procedure between clone2 and central). snip I've made you test... and after I push from first clone, it give no error at all like there's no conflict. But when I look at the main timeline (with fossil ui) on central, the change from first clone create a new leaf. Without any tag or branch name.. it fork from previous version into a leaf and both leaf are in trunk. I'm using Fossil version [184500e46a] 2011-02-21 22:26:00 on Mac OS 10.6. -- Martin ___ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
Re: [fossil-users] REST interface
I'm sure someone else asked this recently. http://wiki.eclipse.org/Mylyn_Integrator_Reference#Use_Cases has an appropriate set of actions my take: 1. each ticket to have an unique URL and retrieve ticket attribute(s) by ID. Done! e.g. http://www.fossil-scm.org/index.html/tktview?name=5f194e2c8f475ce9d5e8bde058c1e97d683f3ce5 2. Search: query returning all of the matching task IDs, optionally with specified field, and matching field. (id, named fields, field(s) matched, matched field values), to enable quick pos-retrieval ranking, 3. Creating new tickets 4. Retrieving allowed operations on possible on a tickets fields (not-authorised,read-only, code-list, replace, append, delete?) 5. performing allowed operations on a tickets fields (append to description, change status to closed) 6. Adding and retrieving attachments (e.g. posting patches, screenshots) As for as what is actually transmitted received - the simpler to parse the better. (Fossil -style key-value pairs are fine, as is JSON) Stephen PS the new fossil site looks good! On Friday, March 4, 2011, Federico Ramallo frama...@gmail.com wrote: Hi, I was thinking it would be great to have a REST interface with the tickets. How difficult would be to implement? I know there are some ways to parse and dump json from C, but I don't know the level of effort. The concept is to interact with the ticket system from JS and improve the UI.What do you think? Regards,Federico Ramallo ___ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
Re: [fossil-users] IMHO Fossil needs renaming...
Some logo ideas: t-rex 'Exciting!' http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQeEF1HR0h6BpVnOpRq3wMhFl9DOkh2j7nA7VzALlWdDqstpI68EA Ammonite pyritized - the repository (and ammonite) are stone, but grow over time. (though the ammonite is much more beautiful) http://images.nbii.gov/R%20Femmer/D_low-res/122%20Ammonite%20pyritized%20I%20b.jpg I think I'll make a theme to go with this one. S. On Thu, Mar 3, 2011 at 6:14 PM, Douglas Fitzmaurice dig...@gmail.com wrote: Looks great! I've made a couple of prototype logo changes: http://helixtech.org.uk/fossil/fossil-logo-1s.png http://helixtech.org.uk/fossil/fossil-logo-2s.png They obviously need some work, hopefully from someone with more design skill than me! (i.e. anyone). On 3 March 2011 14:26, Richard Hipp d...@sqlite.org wrote: On Thu, Mar 3, 2011 at 7:25 AM, Kristoffer Lawson se...@scred.com wrote: On 3 Mar 2011, at 13:41, Richard Hipp wrote: On Thu, Mar 3, 2011 at 4:26 AM, Trou Macacq mac...@gmail.com wrote: Design matters. Design != eye-candy Actually there is research to the opposite :-) When tested people quite literally find better looking services to be easier. The exact same functionality, or even worse functionality, when it looks good, is rated as being easier. Fair enough. So I spruced up the website with some CSS. What else do you recommend. I agree with the posters here that the main Fossil website could do with a bit of a touch up. If we were using Fossil I could possibly justify spending a few hours doing a bit of design on it myself. As it stands I wouldn't want to promise anything, although I'd be tempted to play around with it. For the record I don't think we need some full-blown Web 2.0 Ajax monster, with half of the functionality not working or taking forever to load. The Fossil website is simple, and is great for that reason. So I'd be looking more at a tummy tuck than anything too extensive. -- Kristoffer Lawson, Co-Founder, Scred // http://www.scred.com/ http://travellingsalesman.mobi - 1km The world's most arctic startups ___ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users -- D. Richard Hipp d...@sqlite.org ___ 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 -- -- Stephen De Gabrielle stephen.degabrie...@acm.org Telephone +44 (0)20 85670911 Mobile +44 (0)79 85189045 http://www.degabrielle.name/stephen ___ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
Re: [fossil-users] Work flow with fossil (understanding conflict resolution)
On Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 1:22 PM, Martin Gagnon eme...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 5:58 AM, Jan Danielsson jan.m.daniels...@gmail.com wrote: Hello, In order to figure out how to do conflict resolution with fossil, I created a new repository 'central', I added a file to it, then cloned the repository into 'clone1' and 'clone2'. I switched off autosync from all three repositories, then I modified the the same line in central, clone1 and clone2, and committed the changes. [..epic fail on my part..] I've made you test... and after I push from first clone, it give no error at all like there's no conflict. But when I look at the main timeline (with fossil ui) on central, the change from first clone create a new leaf. Without any tag or branch name.. it fork from previous version into a leaf and both leaf are in trunk. Aahhh, I see now. I hadn't understood the concept of a leaf node. ...which was sort of an major issue for the conflict management. Thanks for pointing me in the right direction. ___ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
Re: [fossil-users] Clone Error over network
On Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 7:05 AM, Anthony Jefferson ac_jeffer...@yahoo.comwrote: All, Since this is my first post, I would like to say how much I like Fossil. I discovered Fossil about 4 month ago, did some initial testing and recommended it for use on our many small projects. It is now used on 6 different projects. The other day one of our developers accidentally checked in a large zip file of about 160 meg. Ouch. Maybe you should consider shunning that one artifact. http://www.fossil-scm.org/fossil/doc/trunk/www/shunning.wiki When cloning, Fossil builds up a complete HTTP reply in memory then pushes it over the wire. Each artifact has to fit completely within one reply - there is no mechanism to split huge artifacts up into pieces. I'm guessing that the 160 ZIP archive is requiring too much memory somehow. After that the repository could not be cloned successfully over the network. I ran the following scenario as a test using an XP 64 machine with Apache 2 running Fossil as a CGI. I used the latest windows fossil.exe from the downloads. I created a new repository and began filling it with items. I was able to clone this repository successfully till it got to about 325 meg. At that point the client attempting the clone reaches 98.7% complete and up pops the windows dialog saying fossil.exe has encountered a problem and needs to close. If I work with the repository locally I can still use it and continue to add artifacts. The network clone simply will not complete successfully. I tested an older fossil.exe from Feb. by creating yet another repository and using fossil.exe server repo.fossil as the server. The clone does not complete in the this scenario either. Is there something about the networking I am missing? What can I do to help find the problem? Network Cloning is pretty key to our operation. Thanks, Tony Jefferson ___ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users -- D. Richard Hipp d...@sqlite.org ___ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
Re: [fossil-users] Clone Error over network
Have no fear...it was shunned! Thanks for the info on individual items. However, I did try this with just lots of smaller items to build up a large repository. I believe it did much the same thing. I will re-test this and get back to the group. If binary objects are checked in should they be indicated in the binary-glob repository options? Fossil does seem pretty good about guessing binary data unlike CVS or SVN. Thanks, Tony --- On Fri, 3/4/11, Richard Hipp d...@sqlite.org wrote: From: Richard Hipp d...@sqlite.org Subject: Re: [fossil-users] Clone Error over network To: fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org Date: Friday, March 4, 2011, 8:42 AM On Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 7:05 AM, Anthony Jefferson ac_jeffer...@yahoo.com wrote: All, Since this is my first post, I would like to say how much I like Fossil. I discovered Fossil about 4 month ago, did some initial testing and recommended it for use on our many small projects. It is now used on 6 different projects. The other day one of our developers accidentally checked in a large zip file of about 160 meg. Ouch. Maybe you should consider shunning that one artifact. http://www.fossil-scm.org/fossil/doc/trunk/www/shunning.wiki When cloning, Fossil builds up a complete HTTP reply in memory then pushes it over the wire. Each artifact has to fit completely within one reply - there is no mechanism to split huge artifacts up into pieces. I'm guessing that the 160 ZIP archive is requiring too much memory somehow. After that the repository could not be cloned successfully over the network. I ran the following scenario as a test using an XP 64 machine with Apache 2 running Fossil as a CGI. I used the latest windows fossil.exe from the downloads. I created a new repository and began filling it with items. I was able to clone this repository successfully till it got to about 325 meg. At that point the client attempting the clone reaches 98.7% complete and up pops the windows dialog saying fossil.exe has encountered a problem and needs to close. If I work with the repository locally I can still use it and continue to add artifacts. The network clone simply will not complete successfully. I tested an older fossil.exe from Feb. by creating yet another repository and using fossil.exe server repo.fossil as the server. The clone does not complete in the this scenario either. Is there something about the networking I am missing? What can I do to help find the problem? Network Cloning is pretty key to our operation. Thanks, Tony Jefferson ___ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users -- D. Richard Hipp d...@sqlite.org -Inline Attachment Follows- ___ 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
[fossil-users] Strange merge conflicts.
Several times when making merge with fossil, I ended up with really strange conflicts like this: BEGIN MERGE CONFLICT: original content first include '%TargetOS%/mouse.asm'=== original content above; conflict below = include '%TargetOS%/mouse.asm' END MERGE CONFLICT: conflict last In one merge, there was 4..5 similar conflicts and none of real In my opinion, both lines are totally equal. Is it a bug or I am missing something? Regards http://fresh.flatassembler.net Assembly language visual programming. ___ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
Re: [fossil-users] Strange merge conflicts.
On Fri, Mar 04, 2011 at 06:18:11PM +0200, John Found wrote: Several times when making merge with fossil, I ended up with really strange conflicts like this: BEGIN MERGE CONFLICT: original content first include '%TargetOS%/mouse.asm'=== original content above; conflict below = include '%TargetOS%/mouse.asm' END MERGE CONFLICT: conflict last In one merge, there was 4..5 similar conflicts and none of real In my opinion, both lines are totally equal. Is it a bug or I am missing something? Can it be a difference on the end of lines? ___ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
Re: [fossil-users] Strange merge conflicts.
On Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 11:18 AM, John Found johnfo...@evrocom.net wrote: Several times when making merge with fossil, I ended up with really strange conflicts like this: BEGIN MERGE CONFLICT: original content first include '%TargetOS%/mouse.asm'=== original content above; conflict below = include '%TargetOS%/mouse.asm' END MERGE CONFLICT: conflict last Did it really come out looking like that, or did the line wrapping occur when you pasted the output in to your email program? Differences might be whitespace. Extra whitespace at the end of the line, or tabs instead of spaces someplace. Or, could it be that your files does not end with a \n and that fact is confusing Fossil somehow? If so, I'll look into it. But a quick fix for you is to make sure your source code files end with \n - something you should probably be doing anyhow. In one merge, there was 4..5 similar conflicts and none of real In my opinion, both lines are totally equal. Is it a bug or I am missing something? Regards http://fresh.flatassembler.net Assembly language visual programming. ___ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users -- D. Richard Hipp d...@sqlite.org ___ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
Re: [fossil-users] Strange merge conflicts.
Can it be a difference on the end of lines? Hm, I don't know actually. There is small possibility that one can be with Linux LF and other with CRLF. Is it important? - they are text files and Fossil merges text files, not binaries. -- Original Message -- To: (fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org) From: Lluís Batlle i Rossell (virik...@gmail.com) Subject: Re: [fossil-users] Strange merge conflicts. Date: 4.3.2011 18:19:25 On Fri, Mar 04, 2011 at 06:18:11PM +0200, John Found wrote: Several times when making merge with fossil, I ended up with really strange conflicts like this: BEGIN MERGE CONFLICT: original content first include '%TargetOS%/mouse.asm'=== original content above; conflict below = include '%TargetOS%/mouse.asm' END MERGE CONFLICT: conflict last In one merge, there was 4..5 similar conflicts and none of real In my opinion, both lines are totally equal. Is it a bug or I am missing something? Can it be a difference on the end of lines? ___ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users http://fresh.flatassembler.net Assembly language visual programming. ___ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
Re: [fossil-users] Strange merge conflicts.
On Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 11:24 AM, John Found johnfo...@evrocom.net wrote: Can it be a difference on the end of lines? Hm, I don't know actually. There is small possibility that one can be with Linux LF and other with CRLF. Is it important? - they are text files and Fossil merges text files, not binaries. Opinions on this vary. Fossil used to ignore whitespace at the ends of lines when merging. But I changed this just the other day in response to a complaint: http://www.fossil-scm.org/fossil/ci/1d93222627 -- Original Message -- To: (fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org) From: Lluís Batlle i Rossell (virik...@gmail.com) Subject: Re: [fossil-users] Strange merge conflicts. Date: 4.3.2011 18:19:25 On Fri, Mar 04, 2011 at 06:18:11PM +0200, John Found wrote: Several times when making merge with fossil, I ended up with really strange conflicts like this: BEGIN MERGE CONFLICT: original content first include '%TargetOS%/mouse.asm'=== original content above; conflict below = include '%TargetOS%/mouse.asm' END MERGE CONFLICT: conflict last In one merge, there was 4..5 similar conflicts and none of real In my opinion, both lines are totally equal. Is it a bug or I am missing something? Can it be a difference on the end of lines? ___ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users http://fresh.flatassembler.net Assembly language visual programming. ___ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users -- D. Richard Hipp d...@sqlite.org ___ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
Re: [fossil-users] Strange merge conflicts.
Did it really come out looking like that, or did the line wrapping occur when you pasted the output in to your email program? Not like in your response. But still strange. I posted 3 lines of text as a example. I will quote them again separateli, closed with [] in order to avoid mail client reformating: 1: [ BEGIN MERGE CONFLICT: original content first ] 2: [include '%TargetOS%/mouse.asm'=== original content above; conflict below =] 3: [include '%TargetOS%/mouse.asm' END MERGE CONFLICT: conflict last ] Possible one of the files could be in Linux format (line ending with $0a) and other in Windows ($0d,$0a) Also, possibly the last line of the file could not end with any of them. There is no whitespace at the end of the line, except for CR and LF. Best Regards. -- Original Message -- To: (fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org) From: Richard Hipp (d...@sqlite.org) Subject: Re: [fossil-users] Strange merge conflicts. Date: 4.3.2011 18:23:12 On Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 11:18 AM, John Found johnfo...@evrocom.net wrote: Several times when making merge with fossil, I ended up with really strange conflicts like this: BEGIN MERGE CONFLICT: original content first include '%TargetOS%/mouse.asm'=== original content above; conflict below = include '%TargetOS%/mouse.asm' END MERGE CONFLICT: conflict last Did it really come out looking like that, or did the line wrapping occur when you pasted the output in to your email program? Differences might be whitespace. Extra whitespace at the end of the line, or tabs instead of spaces someplace. Or, could it be that your files does not end with a \n and that fact is confusing Fossil somehow? If so, I'll look into it. But a quick fix for you is to make sure your source code files end with \n - something you should probably be doing anyhow. In one merge, there was 4..5 similar conflicts and none of real In my opinion, both lines are totally equal. Is it a bug or I am missing something? Regards http://fresh.flatassembler.net Assembly language visual programming. ___ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users -- D. Richard Hipp d...@sqlite.org - ___ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users http://fresh.flatassembler.net Assembly language visual programming. ___ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
Re: [fossil-users] Strange merge conflicts.
I'd go further, and say that the same change happening separately in two branches is a conflict. Given initial content a b For feature foo Bob changes it to a c b for feature bar Tom changes it to a c b When you want a branch with both features foo and bar, there isn't a reasonable way for any merge algorithm to detect whether you need a c b OR a c c b OR perhaps something more like a cc b These decisions are outside the scope of what I would expect from automatic merge to understand. Regards, -- Will Owen West 512.589.0578 ___ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
Re: [fossil-users] IMHO Fossil needs renaming...
On Fri, 4 Mar 2011 12:59:12 + Stephen De Gabrielle stephen.degabrie...@acm.org wrote: Some logo ideas: t-rex 'Exciting!' http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQeEF1HR0h6BpVnOpRq3wMhFl9DOkh2j7nA7VzALlWdDqstpI68EA Um, no. Exciting is the *last* thing I want from a VCS! In looking at the other DVCS sites (and other OSS software) and comparing them to fossil, three things stick out: 1) Most of them have very visible download buttons/sections. Most also have a short quick start section on the home page. 2) Colors. The two sections often have different background colors or bright borders to make them stand out. 3) Bullet lists. For some reason, people like using graphic bullets for lists, with different bullets for each item. At least for major lists. They also keep the lists short - normally no longer than seven items, and then only if they are single-line items. With those three things in mind, I'd suggest reorganizing the home page along these lines: The main content - the long numbered list - gets shortened. Either drop three or four items, or drop the explanations and make them link to a page that provides the detailed explanation. Switch from a numbered list to custom graphics bullets. Replace the box on the right with a download section: A big colorful download link to the downloads page, followed direct text links for Mac, Windows and whichever is most popular of the two Linux links. Below that is a short quick start box, showing a cut form a terminal window of doing doing clone, open, edit, commit. The first four lines (or maybe 8 to show a branch) of the screen capture near the top of http://blog.mired.org/2011/02/adding-vcs-to-zshs-vcsinfo.html is about right. Except leave out the RPROMPT. The bottom half of the page gets split into four parts. The right most part gets the contents of the box that was in the upper left plus the free hosting link. Oh, and add a Quick Links header. The second column gets a User Docs header, and then the links for Concepts, Building And Installing, Embedded Documentation, Branching, Built-in Wiki, Event, Content Deletion, Password Management, Command Line Reference, TH1 Script Language, Server Setup, Ticket System Customization, and Import and Export. Yes, this is about twice as long as I'd like, but fixing it requires reorganizing the user docs. A quick stab at that: Create an advanced topics page, put Content Deletion, Command Line Reference (since it's unfinished), TH1 Script Language, Ticket System Customization, Embedded Documentation, and Server Setup there, and just have the Advanced Topics link in User Docs. The third column gets an Advocacy header, and links for Testimonials, Quotes, Questions Criticisms, fossil-vs git, and Performance stats. The last column is Developer Docs, and is the links for fossil developers. Ok, I know I'm not very good at the UI/graphics design game, so I'm not going to try. But after looking at the other sites suggested, those changes sort of popped into my head. Since no one else mentioned anything along those lines, I figured I would. mike -- Mike Meyer m...@mired.org http://www.mired.org/consulting.html Independent Software developer/SCM consultant, email for more information. O ascii ribbon campaign - stop html mail - www.asciiribbon.org ___ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
Re: [fossil-users] Strange merge conflicts.
-- Original Message -- Opinions on this vary. Fossil used to ignore whitespace at the ends of lines when merging. But I changed this just the other day in response to a complaint: http://www.fossil-scm.org/fossil/ci/1d93222627 So, Fossil treats CR($0d) and LF($0a) as a whitespace, right? http://fresh.flatassembler.net Assembly language visual programming. ___ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
Re: [fossil-users] Strange merge conflicts.
I do not agree here. Of course, the solution is: a c b It follows the principle of least surprise. If you want to make very strange things with merges, do not use a tool with automatic merge. Do it manually. Also, the merge of two equal lines, one with unix line end and the other with Windows line end, should not give any difference. At the end, the merge algorithm is subjective and can do whatever his developer thinks is more convenient to serve their users. RR 2011/3/4 Will West will.o.w...@gmail.com: I'd go further, and say that the same change happening separately in two branches is a conflict. Given initial content a b For feature foo Bob changes it to a c b for feature bar Tom changes it to a c b When you want a branch with both features foo and bar, there isn't a reasonable way for any merge algorithm to detect whether you need a c b OR a c c b OR perhaps something more like a cc b These decisions are outside the scope of what I would expect from automatic merge to understand. Regards, -- Will Owen West 512.589.0578 ___ 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
Re: [fossil-users] Work flow with fossil (understanding conflict resolution)
On Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 7:22 AM, Martin Gagnon eme...@gmail.com wrote: I've made you test... and after I push from first clone, it give no error at all like there's no conflict. But when I look at the main timeline (with fossil ui) on central, the change from first clone create a new leaf. Without any tag or branch name.. it fork from previous version into a leaf and both leaf are in trunk. So, Fossil automatically creates a new branch with not even an informational message saying it did that? That seems like a bug to me. ___ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
Re: [fossil-users] Work flow with fossil (understanding conflict resolution)
On Fri, Mar 04, 2011 at 01:06:46PM -0500, Ron Wilson wrote: On Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 7:22 AM, Martin Gagnon eme...@gmail.com wrote: I've made you test... and after I push from first clone, it give no error at all like there's no conflict. But when I look at the main timeline (with fossil ui) on central, the change from first clone create a new leaf. Without any tag or branch name.. it fork from previous version into a leaf and both leaf are in trunk. So, Fossil automatically creates a new branch with not even an informational message saying it did that? That seems like a bug to me. It's not a branch. It's a fork. For more details, see: http://fossil-scm.org/index.html/doc/trunk/www/branching.wiki Joerg ___ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
Re: [fossil-users] Work flow with fossil (understanding conflict resolution)
On Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 1:28 PM, Joerg Sonnenberger jo...@britannica.bec.de wrote: On Fri, Mar 04, 2011 at 01:06:46PM -0500, Ron Wilson wrote: On Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 7:22 AM, Martin Gagnon eme...@gmail.com wrote: I've made you test... and after I push from first clone, it give no error at all like there's no conflict. But when I look at the main timeline (with fossil ui) on central, the change from first clone create a new leaf. Without any tag or branch name.. it fork from previous version into a leaf and both leaf are in trunk. So, Fossil automatically creates a new branch with not even an informational message saying it did that? That seems like a bug to me. It's not a branch. It's a fork. For more details, see: But I think it's good to know if we just produce a fork... it might not be an expected fork... -- Martin ___ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
[fossil-users] Tcl and tk moving to fossil?
Saw this on reddit: http://code.activestate.com/lists/tcl-core/10108/ S. -- -- Stephen De Gabrielle stephen.degabrie...@acm.org Telephone +44 (0)20 85670911 Mobile+44 (0)79 85189045 http://www.degabrielle.name/stephen ___ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
Re: [fossil-users] Strange merge conflicts.
I made some more tests. Located the check-ins that produced this strange merge and checked out the versions of the problematic file from both check-ins in order to compare them. So, the versions of this file are completely byte-to-byte equal. The only specificity of these files is that the last line ends without CR or LF or any other control character. The last byte in the file is the character ' - that is the last character on the line. Best Regards. -- Original Message -- To: (fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org) From: Richard Hipp (d...@sqlite.org) Subject: Re: [fossil-users] Strange merge conflicts. Date: 4.3.2011 18:23:12 On Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 11:18 AM, John Found johnfo...@evrocom.net wrote: Several times when making merge with fossil, I ended up with really strange conflicts like this: BEGIN MERGE CONFLICT: original content first include '%TargetOS%/mouse.asm'=== original content above; conflict below = include '%TargetOS%/mouse.asm' END MERGE CONFLICT: conflict last Did it really come out looking like that, or did the line wrapping occur when you pasted the output in to your email program? Differences might be whitespace. Extra whitespace at the end of the line, or tabs instead of spaces someplace. Or, could it be that your files does not end with a \n and that fact is confusing Fossil somehow? If so, I'll look into it. But a quick fix for you is to make sure your source code files end with \n - something you should probably be doing anyhow. In one merge, there was 4..5 similar conflicts and none of real In my opinion, both lines are totally equal. Is it a bug or I am missing something? Regards http://fresh.flatassembler.net Assembly language visual programming. ___ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
Re: [fossil-users] Tcl and tk moving to fossil?
On 4 Mar 2011, at 21:10, Stephen De Gabrielle wrote: Saw this on reddit: http://code.activestate.com/lists/tcl-core/10108/ Yeah, the current plan does seem to be to move to fossil. If you ask me it's about time. Tcl was still on CVS! Problems with Sourceforget led to a desire to look at other options (finally). Git and fossil were probably the first choices. I think fossil is likely to be a pretty nice match for Tcl, considering Richard Hipp is a Tcl guy himself, and there is a Tcl-like language embedded within fossil. -- Kristoffer Lawson, Co-Founder, Scred // http://www.scred.com/ http://travellingsalesman.mobi - 1km The world's most arctic startups ___ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
Re: [fossil-users] Work flow with fossil (understanding conflict resolution)
On Mar 4, 2011, at 19:41 , Martin Gagnon wrote: But I think it's good to know if we just produce a fork... it might not be an expected fork... But usually it's not possible to tell if you're creating a fork (you have no idea what other developers have in their private repos). Kind regards, Remigiusz Modrzejewski ___ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
Re: [fossil-users] Fossil on IIS
This is what I've got: - All our project files area stored on a shared file server (Windows Server 2003) - We have multiple clients - Clients have one or more projects - Clients could have multiple locations - Projects could have one or more subprojects - Each client/location/project/subproject has a folder - Each project or subproject will have a Fossil repository on the server - Each repository will be kept in the appropriate project or subproject folder Here is an example directory structure on the file server: \Projects \Client1 (This client has multiple locations) \Location1 \Project1 (This project has subprojects) \Subproject1 \Subproject2 \Subproject3 \Project2 (This project has no subprojects) \Project3 (This project has no subprojects) ... \Location2 ... \Location3 ... \Client2 (This client has only one location) \Project1 \Project2 \Project3 ... \Client3 ... Clearly, all the Fossil repositories will not be stored in the same folder. I'm testing a Perl script that'll sort it all out and invoke Fossil using CGI as required. Almost there. One last hurdle: The script generates a Fossil.cgi file dynamically, as needed, per repository, then invokes Fossil. The initial CGI file looks like this: #!\Program Files\Fossil\Fossil repository: \Projects\Client\Location\Project\repository.fossil Subsequently, the browser comes back asking for resources referenced in the resulting HTML: img src=/cgi-bin/Fossil.pl/logo alt=logo / It's obviously asking for the logo within the repository it just accessed. Q: How should the CGI script invoke Fossil to request these internal resources? I tried: #!\Program Files\Fossil\Fossil repository: \Projects\Client\Location\Project\repository.fossil/logo without success. Please advise. [cid:image001.jpg@01CBDA88.AE35A5F0] TONY PEROVIC tpero...@compumation.commailto:tpero...@compumation.com www.compumation.com 205 W. Grand Ave., Ste. 121 Bensenville, IL 60106 630-860-1921 Phone 630-860-1928 Fax inline: image001.jpg___ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
Re: [fossil-users] Fossil on IIS
On Fri, Mar 04, 2011 at 04:27:44PM -0600, Tony Perovic wrote: Q: How should the CGI script invoke Fossil to request these internal resources? The CGI is quite a defined interface, telling any query information through environment variables, and expecting any answer in stdout. ___ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
Re: [fossil-users] Work flow with fossil (understanding conflict resolution)
On Friday, March 4, 2011, Remigiusz Modrzejewski l...@maxnet.org.pl wrote: On Mar 4, 2011, at 19:41 , Martin Gagnon wrote: But I think it's good to know if we just produce a fork... it might not be an expected fork... But usually it's not possible to tell if you're creating a fork (you have no idea what other developers have in their private repos). Of course, but this was on a push to a central repo where The original version was already commited with a modification on the same line. -- Martin ___ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
[fossil-users] Work flow with fossil (understanding conflict resolution)
On Friday, March 4, 2011, Remigiusz Modrzejewski l...@maxnet.org.pl wrote: On Mar 4, 2011, at 19:41 , Martin Gagnon wrote: But I think it's good to know if we just produce a fork... it might not be an expected fork... But usually it's not possible to tell if you're creating a fork (you have no idea what other developers have in their private repos). But this was on a push to a central repo where The original version was already commited with a modification on the same line. -- Martin ___ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
