Re: [fossil-users] RFC: what do we do with the JSON docs?

On 27 March 2012 17:35, Stephan Beal wrote: > The considerations which have come to mind so far: > > - i would prefer to keep it in wiki form, as opposed to embedded docs, > because i often write docs from arbitrary locations. > Yes - would prefer to not use fossil's wiki markup (i find it too

Re: [fossil-users] push not allowed using ssh://

On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 12:29 PM, Stephan Beal wrote: > On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 6:08 PM, Martin Gagnon wrote: > >> Latest version from trunk. >> >> > Is it possible that your server has 2 fossil binaries and that the default > $PATH set via an ssh shell is finding an older one? That has happened

[fossil-users] Fossil reference in DuckDuckGo

Just found out that DuckDuckGo search engine have zero-click references for Fossil commands: https://duckduckgo.com/?q=fossil+commit -- Dmitry Chestnykh http://www.codingrobots.org ___ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http:/

Re: [fossil-users] Fwd: Problem with symlinks

On 03/29/2012 09:16 PM, Stephan Beal wrote: On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 9:10 PM, Dmitry Chestnykh mailto:dmi...@codingrobots.com>> wrote: - g.allowSymlinks = db_get_boolean("allow- symlinks", 0); + g.allowSymlinks = db_get_boolean("allow- symlinks", g.allowSymlinks); From main.c: me

Re: [fossil-users] Fwd: Problem with symlinks

On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 9:10 PM, Dmitry Chestnykh wrote: > - g.allowSymlinks = db_get_boolean("allow-**symlinks", 0); > + g.allowSymlinks = db_get_boolean("allow-**symlinks", g.allowSymlinks); > >From main.c: memset(&g, 0, sizeof(g)); so the patch would seem to (unless allowSymlinks is set

Re: [fossil-users] Fwd: Problem with symlinks

On 03/28/2012 04:57 PM, Greg Bailey wrote: I'm still encountering this bug with fossil 1.22. Reproduction steps are in the original email below. Symbolic links are sometimes being created as plain files. OK, I fixed this particular bug, but haven't committed changes to trunk yet (the patch is

Re: [fossil-users] branch switching [was: import of ancient projects]

On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 8:19 PM, mlfconv wrote: > Absolutely no problem, thanks! I haven't figured out co since the version > of Fossil I'm using doesn't seem to list co as > a command. [1.22] Are there plans to add co to list of commands? > It's an alias for checkout, and aliases apparently don

Re: [fossil-users] branch switching [was: import of ancient projects]

On Thu, 2012-03-29 at 19:40 +0200, mlfconv wrote: > Hi Ron, > > thanks for your advice, will try, right now I'm unable to figure out > how to switch to a branch or commit into a branch - it seems that if I > run: > > fossil branch new B > fossil add somefile.c > fossil commit -m"commit" --branch

Re: [fossil-users] branch switching [was: import of ancient projects]

Hi Stephan, Absolutely no problem, thanks! I haven't figured out co since the version of Fossil I'm using doesn't seem to list co as a command. [1.22] Are there plans to add co to list of commands? Perhaps instead of"The --branch option folowed by a branch name causes the new checkin to be plac

Re: [fossil-users] Fwd: Problem with symlinks

On 03/28/2012 04:57 PM, Greg Bailey wrote: I'm still encountering this bug with fossil 1.22. Reproduction steps are in the original email below. Symbolic links are sometimes being created as plain files. Thanks, I reproduced the bug. The reason is that before there's an open checkout, "allow-s

Re: [fossil-users] branch switching [was: import of ancient projects]

On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 7:48 PM, Stephan Beal wrote: > so "NEW" is a good hint that it creates the branch. > My apologies if that came across sarcastic or stern - that wasn't my intention. -- - stephan beal http://wanderinghorse.net/home/stephan/ http://gplus.to/sgbeal

Re: [fossil-users] branch switching [was: import of ancient projects]

On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 7:40 PM, mlfconv wrote: > fossil branch new B > fossil co B then: > fossil add somefile.c > fossil commit -m"commit" > The help says: --branch NEW-BRANCH-NAME check in to this new branch so "NEW" is a good hint that it creates the branch. Use checkout (co) to

Re: [fossil-users] branch switching [was: import of ancient projects]

Hi Ron, thanks for your advice, will try, right now I'm unable to figure out how to switch to a branch or commit into a branch - it seems that if I run: fossil branch new B fossil add somefile.c fossil commit -m"commit" --branch B the graph indicator creates 3 separate arrows instead of 2 and

Re: [fossil-users] push not allowed using ssh://

On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 6:08 PM, Martin Gagnon wrote: > Latest version from trunk. > > Is it possible that your server has 2 fossil binaries and that the default $PATH set via an ssh shell is finding an older one? That has happened to me with various apps before. > I've look at this fix, it loo

Re: [fossil-users] push not allowed using ssh://

On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 12:08 PM, Martin Gagnon wrote: > >> What fossil version are you using? >> >> > Latest version from trunk. > > I've look at this fix, it look like to affect only cgi mode, right ? > The way ssh:// works is that the local side sends appropriate shell commands to the far end

Re: [fossil-users] push not allowed using ssh://

On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 11:58 AM, Stephan Beal wrote: > On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 5:55 PM, Martin Gagnon wrote: > >> Error: not authorized to write >> Received: 433 1 0 0 >> Total network traffic: 778 bytes sent, 491 bytes received >> fossil: Autosync failed >> ==

Re: [fossil-users] push not allowed using ssh://

On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 11:55 AM, Martin Gagnon wrote: > Hi list, > > I notice that when using ssh:// protocole to clone, even if I have > read/write access to the fossil file from my ssh account, I cannot push to > it. > What version of Fossil are you running? Does it include this patch

Re: [fossil-users] push not allowed using ssh://

On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 5:55 PM, Martin Gagnon wrote: > Error: not authorized to write > Received: 433 1 0 0 > Total network traffic: 778 bytes sent, 491 bytes received > fossil: Autosync failed > === > IIRC Richard c

[fossil-users] push not allowed using ssh://

Hi list, I notice that when using ssh:// protocole to clone, even if I have read/write access to the fossil file from my ssh account, I cannot push to it. exemple: (with autosync ON) === $ fossil ssh://myhost/somepath/myrep.fossil myrep.fossil $ mkdir

Re: [fossil-users] http_proxy

On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 04:04:36PM +0200, Petr Man wrote: > 2012/3/29 Lluís Batlle i Rossell : > > Anyone using fossil with http_proxy set? > > > > Having http_proxy=localhost:8000 > > > > I get, on any net operation: > > fossil: unknown repository: localhost:8000 > > try http_proxy="http://localh

Re: [fossil-users] http_proxy

2012/3/29 Lluís Batlle i Rossell : > Anyone using fossil with http_proxy set? > > Having http_proxy=localhost:8000 > > I get, on any net operation: > fossil: unknown repository: localhost:8000 try http_proxy="http://localhost:8000"; ___ fossil-users mail

Re: [fossil-users] http_proxy

2012/3/29 Lluís Batlle i Rossell : > Anyone using fossil with http_proxy set? > > Having http_proxy=localhost:8000 > > I get, on any net operation: > fossil: unknown repository: localhost:8000 try http_proxy="http://localhost:8000"; ___ fossil-users mail

[fossil-users] http_proxy

Anyone using fossil with http_proxy set? Having http_proxy=localhost:8000 I get, on any net operation: fossil: unknown repository: localhost:8000 Regards, Lluís. ___ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.or

[fossil-users] versionable ignore-glob problem

Hello! I've problem with (versionable) ignore-glob...wanted to ignore bunch of files belonging to my CMS which are in the root of my app, iow. files/cache/* but using the above pattern in my ~/.fossil-settings/ignore-glob does not help and I had to put: ignore-glob (global) files/cache

Re: [fossil-users] Handling a large number of repositories

Hello Christopher, On 03/29/2012 12:56 PM, Christopher Berardi wrote: Let's say I have a business that creates custom software or web sites or mobile/web apps. For each project I maintain a repo for that project. In such a case, what is the best strategy to handle what will likely (if the busine

[fossil-users] Handling a large number of repositories

Let's say I have a business that creates custom software or web sites or mobile/web apps. For each project I maintain a repo for that project. In such a case, what is the best strategy to handle what will likely (if the business is successful) become a very large number of repositories? Or is there