On 03/01/2017 05:31 PM, Richard Hipp wrote:
On 3/1/17, jungle boogie wrote:
Hi All,
Getting some failures from trunk.
Harmless compiler warnings should now all be fixed. Please try again
and report back what you find.
All better!
Sorry, I shouldn't have used the word failure before.
___
On 3/1/17, jungle boogie wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> Getting some failures from trunk.
Harmless compiler warnings should now all be fixed. Please try again
and report back what you find.
--
D. Richard Hipp
d...@sqlite.org
___
fossil-users mailing list
fossi
Hi All,
Getting some failures from trunk.
cc -I. -I./src -Ibld -DFOSSIL_ENABLE_JSON -DFOSSIL_ENABLE_TH1_DOCS
-DFOSSIL_DYNAMIC_BUILD=1 -I/usr/local/include
-I/usr/local/include/tcl8.6 -g -O2 -DHAVE_AUTOCONFIG_H
-D_HAVE_SQLITE_CONFIG_H -O2 -pipe -o bld/sha1.o -c bld/sha1_.c
./src/sha1.c:319:24
On Mar 1, 2017, at 3:21 PM, Tony Papadimitriou wrote:
>
> if I keep my own repos in SHA3 (which I'm for BTW), but I also have to
> interact with 3rd party sites (like chiselapp) some of which may choose to
> remain with SHA1 compatible, I would have to keep two different fossils to
> cope with
On 3/1/17, Tony Papadimitriou wrote:
>
> I believe DRH asked for feedback. And that was my feedback.
Thank you. Your responses are very useful to me.
--
D. Richard Hipp
d...@sqlite.org
___
fossil-users mailing list
fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org
The trunk check-in of Fossil
(https://www.fossil-scm.org/fossil/timeline?c=trunk) is the release
candidate for version 2.0. I plan to do the version 2.0 release with
48 hours. Please test it out, as you are able.
Version 2.0 is a drop-in replacement for Fossil-1.37 and earlier. Do
not worry tha
-Original Message-
From: Warren Young
On Mar 1, 2017, at 2:03 AM, Tony Papadimitriou wrote:
My 'prediction' is that two versions will end up in a similar mess to the
Python 2.7 vs Python 3.x one.
[all irrelevant Python analysis removed]
I was referring to the fact that Python is di
On 03/01/17 17:06, sky5w...@gmail.com wrote:
[---]
> 3. Fossil 2.0+ delivered as dll.
>I use the exe for remote repo server, but automate my check-in/out's.
>That would be more fluid without parsing CLI text.
This has brought up a few times before, and there are no such plans
(not for 2
On Tue, 28 Feb 2017 21:24:42 -0500
Richard Hipp wrote:
>
> (9) Your feedback is encouraged and appreciated.
Could Fossil 2.0 change from page model to widget model?
If I want to create a new page, for example a project current status, where I
want to show open branchs, future events, last fiv
In my case,
Warren, I agree with you...
--
Martin G.
On Wed, Mar 01, 2017 at 10:24:56AM -0700, Warren Young wrote:
> On Mar 1, 2017, at 2:03 AM, Tony Papadimitriou wrote:
> >
> > My 'prediction' is that two versions will end up in a similar mess to the
> > Python 2.7 vs Python 3.x one.
>
>
On Mar 1, 2017, at 2:03 AM, Tony Papadimitriou wrote:
>
> My 'prediction' is that two versions will end up in a similar mess to the
> Python 2.7 vs Python 3.x one.
Python 3 wouldn’t run a large subset of the available Python 2 code, on
purpose. Fossil 2.x will fully use Fossil 1.x DBs. If yo
Tony, I agree with you.
--
//twitter: @umgeher
//xmpp: m...@umgeher.org
___
fossil-users mailing list
fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org
http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
On 3/1/17, Sean Woods wrote:
> Do you keep updating Fossil 1.x? Will changes to the Fossil 1.x line be
> ported to 2.x?
No. Fossil 2.0 is a drop-in replace for Fossil 1.x. If you find a
problem in historical Fossil 1.x, then the solution is to upgrade to
Fossil 2.0.
--
D. Richard Hipp
d...@s
Do you keep updating Fossil 1.x? Will changes to the Fossil 1.x line be
ported to 2.x?
On Wed, Mar 1, 2017, at 11:36 AM, Richard Hipp wrote:
> On 3/1/17, sky5w...@gmail.com wrote:
> > More 2.0+ requests...
>
> Fossil 2.0 will say focused on one thing: SHA3
>
> --
> D. Richard Hipp
> d...@sql
On 3/1/17, sky5w...@gmail.com wrote:
> More 2.0+ requests...
Fossil 2.0 will say focused on one thing: SHA3
--
D. Richard Hipp
d...@sqlite.org
___
fossil-users mailing list
fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org
http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/ma
Sorry for double post, I got spammed between reply and lost track of what I
deleted. :(
On Wed, Mar 1, 2017 at 11:14 AM, wrote:
> Cool!
> More 2.0+ requests...
> 1. 'Prune' repo to deliver a branch or whatever as a new repo.
>Ideally, history preserved from point of prune forward.
> 2. Unver
Cool!
More 2.0+ requests...
1. 'Prune' repo to deliver a branch or whatever as a new repo.
Ideally, history preserved from point of prune forward.
2. Unversioned files supported with check in/out.
Current approach is confusing(that may be intentional?).
3. Fossil 2.0+ delivered as dll.
I u
All sha's aside:
1. 'Prune' repo to deliver a branch or whatever as a new repo.
Ideally, history preserved from point of prune forward.
2. Unversioned files supported with check in/out.
Current approach is confusing(that may be intentional?).
3. Fossil 2.0+ delivered as dll.
I use the exe
On 2/26/17, Richard Hipp wrote:
> I propose that the next release of Fossil be called "Fossil 2.0"
An alpha version of Fossil 2.0 is now live on the main fossil website:
https://www.fossil-scm.org/
That same Fossil instance also runs SQLite: https://www.sqlite.org/src
This Fossil 2.0
My 'prediction' is that two versions will end up in a similar mess to the
Python 2.7 vs Python 3.x one.
Also, Fossil 2.0 will not be able able to get any significant updates due to
version collision with 2.1 (so, maybe 2.0 and 3.0 -- oops, more like
Python!)
And, having to remember which ver
20 matches
Mail list logo
