Re: [fossil-users] Why Hash

On Thu, 10 Sep 2015 08:05:09 +0200, Stephan Beal wrote: On Wed, Sep 9, 2015 at 10:43 PM, Baruch Burstein wrote: On Wed, Sep 9, 2015 at 10:12 PM, j. van den hoff < veedeeh...@googlemail.com> wrote: in a breach of promise to myself to never

[fossil-users] Feature request: FOSSIL ALL CLOSE

Is it possible to have an ‘FOSSIL ALL CLOSE’ command? I usually have several unrelated fossils open at once. And because of working on the same ones from work and home (and sometimes notebook), and how I transfer backups back and forth at the end of the day, I *need* to close all open

Re: [fossil-users] Why Hash

2015-09-09 22:03 GMT+01:00 paul : > On Wed, Sep 9, 2015 at 7:19 AM, Luca Ferrari > wrote: > >> Assuming I am remembering correctly, if Fossil had this feature, you >>> could >>> do something like: >>> >>> $ fossil timeline -N -n 3 >>> 0

Re: [fossil-users] Why Hash

On 10 September 2015 at 15:17, j. van den hoff wrote: > On Thu, 10 Sep 2015 08:05:09 +0200, Stephan Beal > wrote: > >> On Wed, Sep 9, 2015 at 10:43 PM, Baruch Burstein >> wrote: >> >>> On Wed, Sep 9, 2015 at 10:12 PM, j.

Re: [fossil-users] Feature request: FOSSIL ALL CLOSE

On Sep 10, 2015, at 8:49 AM, Noam Postavsky wrote: > > On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 9:33 AM, Tony Papadimitriou wrote: >> P.S. I know many people don’t bother closing the fossil at all. However, >> [...] >> it’s much simpler to just backup the whole

Re: [fossil-users] Why Hash

On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 9:17 AM, j. van den hoff wrote: > > well, I'm only talking about the ordinal numbers chronologically > enumerating the timeline checkin(!) entries. this enumeration will not > change as a consequence of rebuild, right? it might change after a

Re: [fossil-users] Why Hash

On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 1:44 PM, Jacek Cała wrote: > All in all, I think it would be nice to add these little things to the > console client, so the need for the GUI is only for those who really hate > console. Some of us (yes, even some programmers) think of it the other

Re: [fossil-users] Feature request: FOSSIL ALL CLOSE

On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 9:33 AM, Tony Papadimitriou wrote: > P.S. I know many people don’t bother closing the fossil at all. However, > [...] > it’s much simpler to just backup the whole fossil file. Can't you backup the whole fossil file without closing?

Re: [fossil-users] Feature request: FOSSIL ALL CLOSE

On 9/10/15, Tony Papadimitriou wrote: > > P.S. I know many people don’t bother closing the fossil at all. I don't ever close Fossil repos, for example. > However, I > find the alternative of pushing to a USB drive not convenient when the same > fossil needs to also be pushed on

Re: [fossil-users] Why Hash

On 10/09/15 14:56, Baruch Burstein wrote: On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 1:44 PM, Jacek Cała > wrote: All in all, I think it would be nice to add these little things to the console client, so the need for the GUI is only for those who

Re: [fossil-users] Feature request: FOSSIL ALL CLOSE

On Sep 10, 2015, at 7:33 AM, Tony Papadimitriou wrote: > > Is it possible to have an ‘FOSSIL ALL CLOSE’ command? The attached patch should work for you. In my testing here, it chokes when it tries to close a checkout that I have since abandoned without properly closing it

Re: [fossil-users] Why Hash

On 10 September 2015 at 16:54, Martin Gagnon wrote: > On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 03:29:24PM +0200, Michal Suchanek wrote: >> On 10 September 2015 at 15:17, j. van den hoff >> wrote: >> > On Thu, 10 Sep 2015 08:05:09 +0200, Stephan Beal

Re: [fossil-users] Why Hash

On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 03:29:24PM +0200, Michal Suchanek wrote: > On 10 September 2015 at 15:17, j. van den hoff > wrote: > > On Thu, 10 Sep 2015 08:05:09 +0200, Stephan Beal > > wrote: > > > >> On Wed, Sep 9, 2015 at 10:43 PM, Baruch Burstein

Re: [fossil-users] Why Hash

On Thu, 10 Sep 2015 11:29:15 -0400 Ron W wrote: [...] > Personally, I would find some kind of relative specification more > useful. For example, if I could say "fossil gdiff --from cur-3" and > get a diff between the current check out and the revision 3 commits > before the

Re: [fossil-users] Why Hash

On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 9:29 AM, Michal Suchanek wrote: > Given that fossil does not support history rewriting by design the > commit number on a particular branch counting from root is unique and > stable per branch across all repos. > > If you release from a single master

Re: [fossil-users] Why Hash

On Thu, 10 Sep 2015 16:54:30 +0200, Martin Gagnon wrote: On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 03:29:24PM +0200, Michal Suchanek wrote: On 10 September 2015 at 15:17, j. van den hoff wrote: > On Thu, 10 Sep 2015 08:05:09 +0200, Stephan Beal

Re: [fossil-users] Why Hash

On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 08:39:49PM +0300, Baruch Burstein wrote: >On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 8:03 PM, j. van den hoff ><[1]veedeeh...@googlemail.com> wrote: > > and it really is just irrelevant for the simple envisaged convenience > measure: being able to use the ranks instead of

Re: [fossil-users] Why Hash

On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 8:03 PM, j. van den hoff wrote: > > and it really is just irrelevant for the simple envisaged convenience > measure: being able to use the ranks instead of the hashes for identifying > checkins in _my_ clone when interacting with fossil. I am

Re: [fossil-users] Why Hash

On 9/10/2015 3:44 AM, Jacek Cała wrote: Long time ago I was trying to propose and (almost) implemented numbering for changes, so you could do selective commit with range of files like 1-5,7. There was little interest in that feature, so I gave up. All in all, I think it would be nice to

Re: [fossil-users] Why Hash

On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 2:30 PM, Ross Berteig wrote: > > I realized mid change the other day that the repo I was in had a bunch of > IDE private project data files that had been checked in. (Rant: Just when > will IDE authors learn to prominently document their project

Re: [fossil-users] Why Hash

On Wed, Sep 9, 2015 at 10:43 PM, Baruch Burstein wrote: > On Wed, Sep 9, 2015 at 10:12 PM, j. van den hoff < > veedeeh...@googlemail.com> wrote: > >> in a breach of promise to myself to never again argue in favour of this >> functionality on the fossil mailing list (it came

Re: [fossil-users] Why Hash

On Thu, 10 Sep 2015 20:16:52 +0200, Martin Gagnon wrote: On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 08:39:49PM +0300, Baruch Burstein wrote: On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 8:03 PM, j. van den hoff <[1]veedeeh...@googlemail.com> wrote: and it really is just irrelevant for the simple