Re: [fossil-users] Fossil 2.0: rethinking extras, addremove, and clean

On 5/21/2016 9:03 PM, Joe Mistachkin wrote: > Andy Goth wrote: >> The clean command has gotten very complicated, so I further advocate >> removing the -emptydirs and -dotfiles options and making them always >> be in effect. Empty directories requiring preservation should be >> listed in the

Re: [fossil-users] Fossil 2.0: rethinking extras, addremove, and clean

Andy Goth wrote: > > My recommendation is to keep the promise made by the current addremove > documentation. That is to say, make extras and adds be equal. This > means changing the extras command to also ignore files matched by > clean-glob: extras = adds = tree - managed - ignore-glob. > I

[fossil-users] Fossil 2.0: rethinking extras, addremove, and clean

I've always been bothered by the interaction between extras, addremove, and clean. Let's explore the current situation, its problems, how to deal with them in current Fossil, and how Fossil 2.0 could do better. I'll start by precisely explaining the current behavior as I understand it. First, I

Re: [fossil-users] Branch and tag metadata

On 5/21/2016 6:27 PM, John P. Rouillard wrote: > In message <3d27b874-c4db-f4e9-956f-7bbfd651b...@gmail.com>, > Andy Goth writes: >> How about tags? Put the description in the check-in manifest of the >> first usage of the tag, I suppose. > > That's my thought. IIUC a property with no value is

Re: [fossil-users] Branch and tag metadata

Hi Andy: In message <3d27b874-c4db-f4e9-956f-7bbfd651b...@gmail.com>, Andy Goth writes: >On 5/21/2016 4:53 PM, John P. Rouillard wrote: >> In message , >> "Tony Papadimitriou" writes: >>> I've had the same wish for a long long time. I would >>> like

[fossil-users] keep-glob

What is keep-glob good for? Does anyone use it in their projects? Or the -keep option to clean? Only the clean command reads keep-glob, but the thing it uses it for could also be done with ignore-glob. Of course ignore-glob also effects extras and addremove. However, I can't think of any

Re: [fossil-users] Branch and tag metadata

On 5/21/2016 4:53 PM, John P. Rouillard wrote: > In message , > "Tony Papadimitriou" writes: >> I've had the same wish for a long long time. I would like the FOSSIL BRANCH >> list to show except for the branch name some kind of description. >> Like you

Re: [fossil-users] Branch and tag metadata

Hi all: In message , "Tony Papadimitriou" writes: >I've had the same wish for a long long time. I would like the FOSSIL BRANCH >list to show except for the branch name some kind of description. >Like you mentioned, making the branch name itself long

Re: [fossil-users] Automatic Ticket-commit tagging

Thanks for that information. I was not aware that ticket changes involved artifacts also. I should have known that, but I’m still getting up to speed with fossil. A few months back when I first started using fossil I batch changed a bunch of tickets using SQL, I changed the value of the

Re: [fossil-users] Branch and tag metadata

I've had the same wish for a long long time. I would like the FOSSIL BRANCH list to show except for the branch name some kind of description. Like you mentioned, making the branch name itself long enough would be one way to tackle this but it is counter-productive as you would need to type the

Re: [fossil-users] Automatic Ticket-commit tagging

On Fri, May 20, 2016 at 10:43 AM, Steve Schow wrote: > I think perhaps you meant “commit” comment below? Its the commit comment > that needs to be tweaked, in theory, by the TH1…not the ticket itself. So > are you saying that modifying a commit comment requires that an