Re: [fossil-users] Fossil DB Corruption
On 1/9/15 3:35 PM, Richard Boehme wrote: Good evening. I have a small fossil repository that I've been committing into for a couple of weeks now, and when I tried to commit a bunch of files, it indicated the repository is corrupt. Can anyone recommend how I can fix this? I also have my command list below. As Richard pointed out, you appear to have this on a Google Drive folder. Is there any chance that the Fossil files were being updated by the Google Drive sync process because they had been touched by another client? I have some small Fossil repos on Dropbox similarly because I didn't want to put them on a server. However, I am the only one that accesses them and I'm very careful to make sure the sync is done before I touch the file on the other machine (basically, desktop versus laptop). -- michael at barrow dot me +1.541.600.2027 Do not anticipate trouble, or worry about what may never happen. Keep in the sunlight. -- B. Franklin ___ 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] Incorrect password during 'fossil config pull user url'
On 12/4/14, 5:09 AM, Richard Hipp wrote: Should be working. Are you *sure* you typed the right password? Yes -- I am sure. For good measure, I just tried it again. Both times I copied and pasted the password ~ $ mkdir /tmp/f ~ $ fossil clone https://mbar...@server.example.com/fossil/master /tmp/f/master.fossil password for mbarrow: remember password (Y/n)? Round-trips: 2 Artifacts sent: 0 received: 15 Clone finished with 575 bytes sent, 133206 bytes received Rebuilding repository meta-data... 100.0% complete... project-id: 47bfe3b22950f6522f3a6f2727f198adf62a1f82 admin-user: mbarrow (password is 65330c) ~ $ mkdir /tmp/i ~ $ fossil init /tmp/i/test.fossil project-id: cbabb511a5409961950c5f98d26cae74b49c5fca server-id: 8c35918cfb451162177d6661eef41c8d8905d75c admin-user: mlbarrow (initial password is 60d0c7) ~ $ mkdir /tmp/ic ~ $ cd /tmp/ic ic $ fossil open /tmp/i/test.fossil project-name: unnamed repository: /tmp/i/test.fossil local-root: /private/tmp/ic/ config-db:/Volumes/sbb/Users/mlbarrow/.fossil project-code: cbabb511a5409961950c5f98d26cae74b49c5fca checkout: ec8d744462ffc3259134f6f2565768d4513a3e8a 2014-12-04 18:30:06 UTC leaf: open tags: trunk comment: initial empty check-in (user: mlbarrow) checkins: 1 ic $ fossil config pull skin https://mbar...@server.example.com/fossil/master password for mbarrow: Round-trips: 1 Artifacts sent: 0 received: 0 Error: login failed password for mbarrow: Round-trips: 2 Artifacts sent: 0 received: 0 Error: login failed password for mbarrow: Round-trips: 3 Artifacts sent: 0 received: 0 Error: login failed Round-trips: 3 Artifacts sent: 0 received: 0 Pull finished with 948 bytes sent, 888 bytes received ic $ fossil ver This is fossil version 1.29 [3e5ebe2b90] 2014-06-12 17:25:56 UTC -- michael at barrow dot me +1.408.782.4249 Do not anticipate trouble, or worry about what may never happen. Keep in the sunlight. -- B. Franklin ___ 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] Possible bug.
On 2/26/13 1:12 PM, Stephan Beal wrote: Brief comment from tablet (and no stackoverflow account) - managing /etc with fossil is a poor idea because it does not support permissions and some files in /etc are very sensitive to ownership and perms. Fossil is not the right tool for that job. i cannot say whether the not-found-from-/ is a bug, but suspect it is an unfortunate edge case. What that person wants is etckepeer, except for the small and annoying fact that it doesn't support fossil out of the box. I haven't yet been motivated enough to see what it would take to graft fossil support onto it however because I'm not currently looking for any(more) procrastination targets. :-) -- michael at barrow dot me +1.408.782.4249 ___ 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] Unintentional fork/race condition
On 01/12/2013 09:22 PM, John Found wrote: If this is the case, I whould suggest better solution. Only 3..5 cases in a year are not enough to train the team enough and to increase the situation awareness of the people. Isn't it better to make fossil to fork randomly with probability, let say, 1:20. This approach will train the users very quick. They will acquire good habits and will never allow airplain crashes and medical errors because of situation awareness loss. Please stop trolling -- Michael Barrow michael at barrow dot me +1 (408) 782-4249 ___ 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] Unintentional fork/race condition
On 01/12/2013 09:48 PM, John Found wrote: I am not trolling. It is Reductio ad absurdum that proves D. Richard Hipp is wrong in his statement. Solving technical problems by high-handed methods is wrong by definition. The source is available, so you should feel free to download and add in the random fork feature you described. Enjoy! -- Michael Barrow michael at barrow dot me +1 (408) 782-4249 ___ 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 vs. Git/Mercurial/etc.?
I too have been saddened by the two flame wars on this list lately. I have held onto the list because Fossil is super valuable to me and I want to stay in the loop. I can only hope that folks will learn to think before hitting reply in the new year... michael at barrow dot me +1.408.782.4249 -Original Message- From: Steve Havelka Sent: 12/31/2012 10:01 To: Fossil SCM user's discussion Subject: Re: [fossil-users] Fossil vs. Git/Mercurial/etc.? On 12/31/2012 06:21 AM, Jan Danielsson wrote: On 12/31/12 11:17, Nico Williams wrote: [---] But I feel I must at least address this insinuation that I was trolling. It's obvious that you aren't trolling. You don't have to defend yourself against such nonsense. I agree with Jan. I also think this thread and the mv/rm hostility suggest a change in tone for the mailing list which is more than a little embarrassing. I'm sorry you felt compelled to unsubscribe, Nico. ___ 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 vs. Git/Mercurial/etc.?
On 12/25/2012 12:44 AM, Michael Richter wrote: This leaves me doubly confused. Neither of these command lines works for me. There is no fossil cap I can see. (Fossil whines about unknown command: cap.) And fossil new doesn't have that command line that I can see. Is this some variant that's not on trunk? (I have a fossil from 2012-12-22's trunk.) The word user is missing from the command line invocations: Usage: fossil user SUBCOMMAND ... ?-R|--repository FILE? Run various subcommands on users of the open repository or of the repository identified by the -R or --repository option. fossil user capabilities USERNAME ?STRING? Query or set the capabilities for user USERNAME fossil user default ?USERNAME? Query or set the default user. The default user is the user for command-line interaction. fossil user list List all users known to the repository fossil user new ?USERNAME? ?CONTACT-INFO? ?PASSWORD? Create a new user in the repository. Users can never be deleted. They can be denied all access but they must continue to exist in the database. fossil user password USERNAME ?PASSWORD? Change the web access password for a user. -- Michael Barrow michael at barrow dot me +1 (408) 782-4249 ___ 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] comparison with Git
I'm a faithful Fossil user and I have enjoyed its limitations compared to Git because I consider them features. And pardon my commentary as I typically lurk on the list rather than provide ongoing input to the development. If Git does all of this fancy stuff already, why not just use Git? Why must the beauty and simplicity of Fossil be 'polluted' with this additional baggage? And, if you like some of what Fossil does and some of what Git does, then go and make a bastard stepchild of the two, but please do not advocate putting a bunch of weird stuff into Fossil! *phew* I feel better now that I've said that... :-) -- michael at barrow dot me +1.408.782.4249 ___ 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] comparison with Git
On 9/14/12 11:53 AM, Bill Burdick wrote: Rest assured that even if weird features like rebasing were to pollute Fossil, no one would force you to use them :) But the size and complexity of the resulting application which is known for being well-engineered could suffer... -- michael at barrow dot me +1.408.782.4249 ___ 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] Something like rollback
On 8/15/12 12:21 PM, Nick Zalutskiy wrote: Ideally I'd like to revert that commit somehow and do two smaller commits thereafter. Since there is no rewriting history in fossil, I assume that this would involve doing a new commit that is the opposite of the incorrect one, and then replying the changes one a time. How would I do this? I don't know the right answer, but having done this myself, this is what I do: edit the commit comment to better describe the small fix and then call the checkin of all of the other stuff as a checkpoint as part of building that other feature. I am paranoid and frequently do checkpoint checkins of a branch (typically trunk) even if the code is not yet properly working. I just want to capture the state of the world before anything bad happens. It's also a good way to get the stuff off of my local machine (in addition to the near real-time backups that are also happening, of course). -- michael at barrow dot me +1.408.782.4249 ___ 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 bug - same file created simultaneously in two work areas not merging properly
Currently it looks to the first person to commit as though their changes were discarded. The file is marked MERGED yet only contains content from the last person to add. Perhaps not something that will happen very often but the behavior is clearly wrong. Unless I did something wrong while emulating the tests, the data is not discarded per se. One can move aside the new version of the file, update to get the old version and then manually do the merge. Was that not your experience? -- Michael Barrow michael at barrow dot me +1 (408) 782-4249 ___ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
[fossil-users] Question about tags and autosync...
Firstly, I'm running: This is fossil version 1.21 [002580c50d] 2011-12-13 13:53:56 UTC Perhaps I'm confused, but the documentation for autosync being enabled says: autosync If enabled, automatically pull prior to commit or update and automatically push after commit or tag or branch creation. If the value is pullonly then only pull operations occur automatically. But, when I create a tag, it doesn't get pushed to the remote repo until I push or sync. Am I confused? Does it matter that this is a branch? -- Michael Barrow michael at barrow dot me +1 (408) 782-4249 ___ 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] Question about tags and autosync...
On 4/25/12 6:49 PM, Richard Hipp wrote: What command did you use to create the tag? fossil tag add foo current I don't see any code associated with the tag command that will do an autosync. My suspicious is that the documentation you site above is incorrect and that tag creation should be removed from the list of things that will trigger an automatic push. WHAT!?!?! Are you saying the docs don't match the source!? :-) -- michael at barrow dot me +1.408.782.4249 ___ 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] ./configure can't find openssl [OT]
On 04/18/2012 10:35 AM, Miles Fidelman wrote: I've been trying to build Fossil from source on a Debian Squeeze box. Hey Miles -- long time, no see/hear. Hope you are well. Welcome to the world of Fossil! I love this stuff. Talk to you later, Michael -- Michael Barrow michael at barrow dot me +1 (408) 782-4249 ___ 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] C API
On Sat, 7 Jan 2012 17:20:03 -0500, sky5w...@gmail.com wrote: Yes, I have been reading about the JSON work, but I prefer not to go that route. I'm confused. What would a csv output version offer that the JSON currently does not? -- Michael Barrow michael at barrow dot me +1 (408) 782-4249 ___ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
