On Apr 5, 2010, at 12:34 AM, Jeremy Cowgar wrote:
I created a new branch on as 0.2.0. I then however, realized I
goofed. I
wanted the branch to be 0.2. I would later create a tag for the 0.2.0
release of the 0.2 branch (expecting 0.2.1, 0.2.3, etc... which would
all be tags in the 0.2
Hi,
As for the case of removing illegal insertions, I think it is far better
to have the real history saying we had these from this date to that date,
as you can see, but you can also see that they were removed at a
particular time and not used thereafter. This follows the accounting
On Mon, 5 Apr 2010, Twylite wrote:
The point about accountability is well made though - perhaps the shun
action should cause an entry in the timeline at the time the shun is
effected, indicating the artifact that was shunned, the parent of the
shunned artifact, and a comment (why it was
Hence, Fossil has from the beginning supported the ability to PGP sign
check-ins. The PGP signature is optional. If a check-in is signed,
you know exactly who originally made that check-in. In situations
where it matters, simply assume that an unsigned check-in is malicious
and avoid using
Hence, Fossil has from the beginning supported the ability to PGP sign
check-ins. The PGP signature is optional. If a check-in is signed,
you know exactly who originally made that check-in. In situations
where it matters, simply assume that an unsigned check-in is malicious
and avoid using
Is there a way yet to require a GPG signature for all checkins?
No, not yet.
There are two things that could be done here. (1) Require all check-
ins to be signed in the client software. Of course, a hacker could
easily defeat such a system, so it is really only to prevent honest
On Apr 5, 2010, at 4:42 PM, Wilson, Ronald wrote:
I'm just not sure how that really works out in practice. If you allow
remote users to perform checkins, how do you sort it out if someone
makes a mess? Maybe I just don't understand tagging. I would want to
be able to move untrusted
D. Richard Hipp wrote:
On Apr 5, 2010, at 4:42 PM, Wilson, Ronald wrote:
I'm just not sure how that really works out in practice. If you allow
remote users to perform checkins, how do you sort it out if someone
makes a mess? Maybe I just don't understand tagging. I would want to
be able to
On Apr 5, 2010, at 7:38 PM, Jeremy Cowgar wrote:
On 4/5/2010 7:12 AM, D. Richard Hipp wrote:
In the Tags And Properties section of
http://fossil.josl.org/info/0bc11bf7ae
you will see that you did not change the branch - the branch is
still 0.2.0. You just added a new tag named 2.0. To
9 matches
Mail list logo
