[fossil-users] Notification on new tickets
One of the things that sites like github do much better than fossil at the moment is to keep you informed of new tickets or ticket changes. When you have a reasonable sized userbase this saves a lot of time in needlessly checking the timeline for ticket changes. Until commit hooks are added (if ever, I do understand the issues behind it), I have found a nice workaround which I would like to share. Fossil has built in RSS feeds with the granularity to only show ticket changes. You can combine this with IFTTT to implement email notifications when a new ticket is added to your main repo. You can achieve this by combining the If feed matches trigger with the email action. You can adapt the recipe at https://ifttt.com/recipes/109526 for your needs. Mark ___ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
[fossil-users] Merge SSH changes?
Hello, Last week I sent out an email regarding the new SSH changes, which I believe are ready to go: http://www.mail-archive.com/fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org/msg12579.html I have been using it and it feels stable. There has only been one change since then (cleans up output during exchanges): http://fossil-scm.org/index.html/info/d1771cd138 Any objections to having this branch for changed SSH behavior merged in and the changes published into www/changes.wiki? Thanks, Andy -- TAI64 timestamp: 400051ffe53d ___ 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] Notification on new tickets
On Mon, Aug 5, 2013 at 4:10 PM, Mark Janssen mpc.jans...@gmail.com wrote: Fossil has built in RSS feeds with the granularity to only show ticket changes. Historical anecdote: that feature was originally proposed/implemented only recently (February) by David Given. When he first suggested it, it was a facepalm moment for me - i couldn't believe nobody had suggested it before. http://fossil-scm.org/index.html/timeline?r=timeline-rss-ticket You can achieve this by combining the If feed matches trigger with the email action. You can adapt the recipe at https://ifttt.com/recipes/109526 for your needs. Very nice :). Would it be possible to get a copy somewhere which doesn't require a login? How about a Fossil doc/wiki page about how to do it? -- - stephan beal http://wanderinghorse.net/home/stephan/ http://gplus.to/sgbeal ___ 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] Code review (reloaded)
Laurens Van Houtven _...@lvh.io wrote: Hi, I'd like to know what sort of code review practices Fossil users employ. I believe this has come up at least twice: I've asked about it myself back in 2010, and Russ Paielli from the Scala team in 2011. All the projects I currently work on have some explicit form of code review, be it: - Github pull requests - explicit code review processes on top of an existing tool (such as twisted + trac) - Launchpad merge proposals In my organization, code reviews are part of our process. All issues (or new features) get resolved (or implemented) on branches. AS part of the integration and test phase, the latest approved code is merge into an issue branch, code is built and tested. If it passes, another check is made for new updates to merge in. If branch is up to date, then the developer sends out a review request via email. After the changes are approved, another check for updates is made. If branch must be updated, again, the code must be reviewed, again. Otherwise, the branch is merged back in to the trunk as approved code. ___ 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 running out of memory
Hello, thanks a lot for your answers. The repository in question is a bit less than 100MB big and carries around 30 binaries of up to 6MB each. I am aware that the fossil version I am using is outdated, but as Joseph said, it is the version packaged in Debian stable, and in Ubuntu 12.04 as well. Installing newer versions manually on all the machines involved is not feasible in my situation. My question was intended to be Can I do something to the repository---and not to fossil---in order to get things working again, with version 1.22? In line with what Joseph suggested I have filed a wishlist bug against fossil in Debian, where I ask the package maintainer to package a recent version of fossil for inclusion in unstable and testing (not backports, though). Best, Benedikt [1] http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=718812 ___ 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] Notification on new tickets
On Aug 5, 2013 8:01 PM, Stephan Beal sgb...@googlemail.com wrote: On Mon, Aug 5, 2013 at 4:10 PM, Mark Janssen mpc.jans...@gmail.com wrote: Fossil has built in RSS feeds with the granularity to only show ticket changes. Historical anecdote: that feature was originally proposed/implemented only recently (February) by David Given. When he first suggested it, it was a facepalm moment for me - i couldn't believe nobody had suggested it before. http://fossil-scm.org/index.html/timeline?r=timeline-rss-ticket You can achieve this by combining the If feed matches trigger with the email action. You can adapt the recipe at https://ifttt.com/recipes/109526 for your needs. Very nice :). Would it be possible to get a copy somewhere which doesn't require a login? How about a Fossil doc/wiki page about how to do it? -- As far as I know, IFTTT requires a login to see recipes (unfortunately). Without the linking of the RSS trigger to the email action that it does, there is not much to describe on the wiki besides; check rss and send mail when New ticket is in the timeline. Mark - stephan beal http://wanderinghorse.net/home/stephan/ http://gplus.to/sgbeal ___ 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] fossil running out of memory
On Mon, Aug 5, 2013 at 3:55 PM, Benedikt Ahrens benedikt.ahr...@gmx.netwrote: Hello, thanks a lot for your answers. The repository in question is a bit less than 100MB big and carries around 30 binaries of up to 6MB each. I am aware that the fossil version I am using is outdated, but as Joseph said, it is the version packaged in Debian stable, and in Ubuntu 12.04 as well. Installing newer versions manually on all the machines involved is not feasible in my situation. You are aware that installing Fossil simply means copying the self-contained executable file into /usr/bin (or whatever other $PATH directory you want to use), right? There are no dependencies. You do not need to run configuration scripts or installers or update related packages or libraries or deal with package managers. Just copy *one file* into your $PATH on each machine where it matters. My question was intended to be Can I do something to the repository---and not to fossil---in order to get things working again, with version 1.22? In line with what Joseph suggested I have filed a wishlist bug against fossil in Debian, where I ask the package maintainer to package a recent version of fossil for inclusion in unstable and testing (not backports, though). Best, Benedikt [1] http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=718812 ___ 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] Merge SSH changes?
On Mon, Aug 5, 2013 at 1:47 PM, Andy Bradford amb-fos...@bradfords.orgwrote: Hello, Last week I sent out an email regarding the new SSH changes, which I believe are ready to go: http://www.mail-archive.com/fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org/msg12579.html I have been using it and it feels stable. There has only been one change since then (cleans up output during exchanges): http://fossil-scm.org/index.html/info/d1771cd138 Any objections to having this branch for changed SSH behavior merged in and the changes published into www/changes.wiki? I just tried it, and it is different, isn't it. :-|. Let me mess around some and see if I can live with the change. Apparently, I'll need to get real familiar with --ssh-fossil-user -- 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] fossil running out of memory
On Mon, Aug 5, 2013 at 10:15 PM, Richard Hipp d...@sqlite.org wrote: On Mon, Aug 5, 2013 at 3:55 PM, Benedikt Ahrens benedikt.ahr...@gmx.netwrote: is not feasible in my situation. packages or libraries or deal with package managers. Just copy *one file* into your $PATH on each machine where it matters. @Benedikt: the easiest thing to do is to edit your $PATH to include $HOME/bin and drop fossil in $HOME/bin. If you need help with setting the PATH, google for ubuntu edit path (bzw. ubuntu path bearbeiten) and several useful answers are there. My question was intended to be Can I do something to the repository---and not to fossil---in order to get things working again, with version 1.22? We don't know, and that version is old enough for us to justify suggesting you try a newer version before we pursue it further. [1] http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=718812 :) -- - stephan beal http://wanderinghorse.net/home/stephan/ http://gplus.to/sgbeal ___ 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] Merge SSH changes?
Thus said Richard Hipp on Mon, 05 Aug 2013 16:21:05 -0400: I just tried it, and it is different, isn't it. :-|. Let me mess around some and see if I can live with the change. Apparently, I'll need to get real familiar with --ssh-fossil-user Yes, it's a bit different becuase now Fossil credentials are required. Before, the file was just opened with localauth enabled. The default behavior is SSH User = Fossil User (credentials required). But with the --ssh-fossil-user it is possible to use any number of Fossil users sharing the same SSH account (primarily through SSH keys). Addtionally, it is now possible to use SSH keys and Force Commands to restrict the SSH account to doing Fossil only activities. One thing that I haven't done, but might be necessary, is to change the password prompt from: password for user: To: Fossil password for user: Or something like that, just so it is not ambiguous which password is being entered. Thanks for looking at it! Andy -- TAI64 timestamp: 400052000dc3 ___ 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] Merge SSH changes?
Thus said Andy Bradford on 05 Aug 2013 14:40:08 -0600: Addtionally, it is now possible to use SSH keys and Force Commands to restrict the SSH account to doing Fossil only activities. s/possible/easier/ It was always possible to write a wrapper script, but it's much easier if fossil is the only thing running: command=/home/amb/bin/fossil http fossils/project.fossil ssh-rsa ... One further note regarding the SSH credentials + SSH credentials; it's not very different from using SSL Client certificates. With SSL Client certificates, you must have both the authentication via SSL and the authentication via Fossil to gain access. Andy -- TAI64 timestamp: 400052000f57 ___ 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] Merge SSH changes?
On Mon, Aug 5, 2013 at 4:40 PM, Andy Bradford amb-fos...@bradfords.orgwrote: Thus said Richard Hipp on Mon, 05 Aug 2013 16:21:05 -0400: I just tried it, and it is different, isn't it. :-|. Let me mess around some and see if I can live with the change. Apparently, I'll need to get real familiar with --ssh-fossil-user Yes, it's a bit different becuase now Fossil credentials are required. Before, the file was just opened with localauth enabled. The default behavior is SSH User = Fossil User (credentials required). But with the --ssh-fossil-user it is possible to use any number of Fossil users sharing the same SSH account (primarily through SSH keys). Addtionally, it is now possible to use SSH keys and Force Commands to restrict the SSH account to doing Fossil only activities. One thing that I haven't done, but might be necessary, is to change the password prompt from: password for user: To: Fossil password for user: Or maybe: Password for Fossil user $USER. That would have saved me a lot of confusion. Or something like that, just so it is not ambiguous which password is being entered. Thanks for looking at it! Andy -- TAI64 timestamp: 400052000dc3 -- 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] Notification on new tickets
2013/8/5 Mark Janssen mpc.jans...@gmail.com: Until commit hooks are added (if ever, I do understand the issues behind it), I have found a nice workaround which I would like to share. There is an experimental branch tkt-change-hook which implements exactly that. Feel free to try it and report your findings. Regards, Jan Nijtmans ___ 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] Merge SSH changes?
Unfortunately even though I'm very interested I haven't had time to look closely at this new ssh approach. Is the following use case possible to implemen with your code? I ask because I hear some emphasis on the many-to-one mapping and I'm interested in one-to-one mapping. Each person given access registers their public key (maybe an administrator checks them in to an admin fossil similar to how gitolite works) . Users do not have a fossil password (but they are registered with the fossil). This might use or be similar to the CGI REMOTE_USER variable workings. Once I have my ssh key entered I should be able to do all operations (clone, sync, commit etc.) without entering my password but the remote fossil knows who I am. Thanks. On Mon, Aug 5, 2013 at 2:52 PM, Richard Hipp d...@sqlite.org wrote: On Mon, Aug 5, 2013 at 4:40 PM, Andy Bradford amb-fos...@bradfords.orgwrote: Thus said Richard Hipp on Mon, 05 Aug 2013 16:21:05 -0400: I just tried it, and it is different, isn't it. :-|. Let me mess around some and see if I can live with the change. Apparently, I'll need to get real familiar with --ssh-fossil-user Yes, it's a bit different becuase now Fossil credentials are required. Before, the file was just opened with localauth enabled. The default behavior is SSH User = Fossil User (credentials required). But with the --ssh-fossil-user it is possible to use any number of Fossil users sharing the same SSH account (primarily through SSH keys). Addtionally, it is now possible to use SSH keys and Force Commands to restrict the SSH account to doing Fossil only activities. One thing that I haven't done, but might be necessary, is to change the password prompt from: password for user: To: Fossil password for user: Or maybe: Password for Fossil user $USER. That would have saved me a lot of confusion. Or something like that, just so it is not ambiguous which password is being entered. Thanks for looking at it! Andy -- TAI64 timestamp: 400052000dc3 -- 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 -- Matt -=- 90% of the nations wealth is held by 2% of the people. Bummer to be in the majority... ___ 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] Merge SSH changes?
Thus said Richard Hipp on Mon, 05 Aug 2013 19:42:12 -0400: Once I have my ssh key entered I should be able to do all operations (clone, sync, commit etc.) without entering my password but the remote fossil knows who I am. That's the way it used to work. I think Andy's changes fix it so that it doesn't work that way any more. I'm disappointed too, and would like to find a solution that works both ways. The initial changes that I made for this change actually allowed the user to specify which method to use; http vs test-http. Choosing test-http (also the default) would have left the original behavior in-tact. I did ask whether or not to retain the original behavior, but some users indicated that test-http shouldn't really be used so I removed the option: http://www.mail-archive.com/fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org/msg12190.html I can certainly add back in those changes if needs be. Andy -- TAI64 timestamp: 4000520042df ___ 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] Merge SSH changes?
Thus said Andy Bradford on 05 Aug 2013 22:42:44 -0600: It would be better if I didn't have to rely on a script for this, which is why I thought a new fossil subcommand would be useful. This would mean all I have to put into my command= is something like: Ok, scratch that. I've already conceded that this does not require a new fossil subcommand (amazing how ideas stick around sometimes). A simple special purpose binary written in C would suffice. Andy -- TAI64 timestamp: 4000520082e4 ___ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
