Re: [fossil-users] Fossil Failing to Clone 170 Meg Repo over 3G Link

2010-04-22 Thread Joshua Paine
What kind of error do you get? If you need a workaround, you can transfer the repo file with scp or rsync (which can pick up where it left off when interrupted) and then fossil sync them. -- Joshua Paine LetterBlock: Web applications built with joy http://letterblock.com/ 301-576-1920 _

Re: [fossil-users] Fossil Failing to Clone 170 Meg Repo over 3G Link

2010-04-22 Thread Andy Reynolds
More info - I get 43Megs (but this figure varies) then it just hangs - I clocked link at 1440mbps - Original Message - From: "Andy Reynolds" To: Sent: Thursday, April 22, 2010 7:03 PM Subject: Fossil Failing to Clone 170 Meg Repo over 3G Link > Hello Fossillies, > > I have tried rep

[fossil-users] Fossil Failing to Clone 170 Meg Repo over 3G Link

2010-04-22 Thread Andy Reynolds
Hello Fossillies, I have tried repeatedely to clone a large-ish repo (~170MB) over a 3G link (fast digi cellphone link) - the link is pretty fast. I can clone the repo on the server directly ok - so presume repo is ok. My version is "...fossil version [73c24ae363] 2010-03-18 14:20:33 UTC" Any

Re: [fossil-users] Fossil use question

2010-04-22 Thread D. Richard Hipp
On Apr 22, 2010, at 9:52 AM, verizon wrote: > Yes, it was obvious with the new version and it shows I don't > understand the concept of "leaf". The current path shows two > leaves and checkins were done on different leaves. So leaves are > something Fossil automatically generates b

Re: [fossil-users] Fossil use question

2010-04-22 Thread verizon
Yes, it was obvious with the new version and it shows I don't understand the concept of "leaf". The current path shows two leaves and checkins were done on different leaves. So leaves are something Fossil automatically generates but branches are something the user imposes on the repo

Re: [fossil-users] Fossil use question

2010-04-22 Thread D. Richard Hipp
On Apr 22, 2010, at 7:29 AM, verizon wrote: > No the repository has no branches. I did find the server where the > repository is kept had a clock that was 1 hour ahead of current > time. (Not sure how it got that way, it had shifted to Daylight > savings time but was an hour ahead).

Re: [fossil-users] Fossil use question

2010-04-22 Thread D. Richard Hipp
On Apr 22, 2010, at 7:29 AM, verizon wrote: > No the repository has no branches. I did find the server where the > repository is kept had a clock that was 1 hour ahead of current > time. (Not sure how it got that way, it had shifted to Daylight > savings time but was an hour ahead).

Re: [fossil-users] Fossil use question

2010-04-22 Thread verizon
No the repository has no branches. I did find the server where the repository is kept had a clock that was 1 hour ahead of current time. (Not sure how it got that way, it had shifted to Daylight savings time but was an hour ahead). Anyway this is now fixed but the problem persists.