Re: [fossil-users] [PROPOSED FEATURE] Fossil commands output sent through a pager

2017-03-27 Thread Andy Bradford
Thus said Warren Young on Mon, 27 Mar 2017 10:21:42 -0600: > Explain to me how someone deciding between Fossil and Git gets down to > automatic pagination as the key differentiator, the one that seals > their decision. While it may not be used as a determining factor in deciding between Git

Re: [fossil-users] Fossil interprets plain-text file as a binary file

2017-03-27 Thread Byron Sanchez
That was it! I ran the command and received the output: Starts with UTF-8 BOM: no Starts with UTF-16 BOM: no Looks like UTF-8: no Has flag LOOK_NUL: yes Has flag LOOK_CR: no Has flag LOOK_LONE_CR: no Has flag LOOK_LF: yes Has flag LOOK_LONE_LF: yes Has flag LOOK_CRLF: no Has flag LOOK_LONG: no

Re: [fossil-users] Fossil interprets plain-text file as a binary file

2017-03-27 Thread Richard Hipp
On 3/27/17, Ross Berteig wrote: > > I believe that a line is too long if it is more than about 8191 ASCII > characters, a restriction based on the size of the buffer used in the > diff engine. Technically, that restriction is due to the way hashes are computed on individual

Re: [fossil-users] Fossil interprets plain-text file as a binary file

2017-03-27 Thread Ross Berteig
On 3/27/2017 5:44 PM, Byron Sanchez wrote: I'm tracking several plain-text files in a repository. These are emacs org-mode files. Fossil sees most of the files in this repo as normal plain-text files and as such, they can be diffed via the fossil web interface. Recently, however, fossil

Re: [fossil-users] Fossil interprets plain-text file as a binary file

2017-03-27 Thread Scott Robison
On Mar 27, 2017 6:44 PM, "Byron Sanchez" wrote: Recently, however, fossil has started interpreting one of these org-mode files as a binary file. Now, fossil prompts with it's binary-file warning each time I update the file. In addition, this file can no longer be diffed in the

[fossil-users] Fossil interprets plain-text file as a binary file

2017-03-27 Thread Byron Sanchez
I'm tracking several plain-text files in a repository. These are emacs org-mode files. Fossil sees most of the files in this repo as normal plain-text files and as such, they can be diffed via the fossil web interface. Recently, however, fossil has started interpreting one of these org-mode

Re: [fossil-users] fossil-users Digest, Vol 110, Issue 51

2017-03-27 Thread Ron W
On Sun, Mar 26, 2017 at 2:56 PM, wrote: > > Date: Sun, 26 Mar 2017 20:50:38 +0200 > From: Jan Danielsson > To: fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org > Subject: Re: [fossil-users] GitLab v. Fossil. Was: Eric Raymond >

Re: [fossil-users] [PROPOSED FEATURE] Fossil 'branch' command displays only current branch by default

2017-03-27 Thread Ross Berteig
On 3/27/2017 2:29 PM, Christophe Gouiran wrote: Someone wanting to get the list or current branch without relying on raw Fossil output could use "fossil json branch list" for that purpose. But only if fossil was configured with JSON support. Which is not configured by default, or in

Re: [fossil-users] [PROPOSED FEATURE] Fossil 'branch' command displays only current branch by default

2017-03-27 Thread Christophe Gouiran
> > > While the addition of a subcommand seems like a good idea, changing > default behaviour will no doubt break existing workflows. > I agree on this point. However I have learned (where possible) to never rely on raw commands outputs in my wrappers. Indeed, I took over several years ago a

Re: [fossil-users] [PROPOSED FEATURE] Fossil 'branch' command displays only current branch by default

2017-03-27 Thread Warren Young
On Mar 27, 2017, at 12:07 PM, Warren Young wrote: > > It isn’t always clue to newbies s/clue/clear/ ___ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org

Re: [fossil-users] [PROPOSED FEATURE] Fossil 'branch' command displays only current branch by default

2017-03-27 Thread Marc Simpson
On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 10:40 AM, Christophe Gouiran wrote: > > please find an attached patch which implements a new "current" subcommand for > "branch". > This is now the default subcommand if one executes "fossil branch" without > any subcommand. While the addition of

Re: [fossil-users] [PROPOSED FEATURE] Fossil 'branch' command displays only current branch by default

2017-03-27 Thread Warren Young
On Mar 27, 2017, at 11:50 AM, bch wrote: > > > executing "fossil branch" to get the current branch is not very convenient > > to me. > > Note that "fossil info" gives information about the current checkout, > including the branch name. That info is also given in

Re: [fossil-users] [PROPOSED FEATURE] Fossil 'branch' command displays only current branch by default

2017-03-27 Thread bch
On Mar 27, 2017 10:40, "Christophe Gouiran" wrote: Hello everybody, Amount of branches may be quite important (in Fossil code itself, there are now about 100 branches). In this case, executing "fossil branch" to get the current branch is not very convenient to me. Note

Re: [fossil-users] [PROPOSED FEATURE] Fossil 'branch' command displays only current branch by default

2017-03-27 Thread Umgeher Torgersen
Nice! -- //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

[fossil-users] [PROPOSED FEATURE] Fossil 'branch' command displays only current branch by default

2017-03-27 Thread Christophe Gouiran
Hello everybody, Amount of branches may be quite important (in Fossil code itself, there are now about 100 branches). In this case, executing "fossil branch" to get the current branch is not very convenient to me. please find an attached patch which implements a new "current" subcommand for

Re: [fossil-users] [PROPOSED FEATURE] Fossil commands output sent through a pager

2017-03-27 Thread Martin S. Weber
On 03/27/17 01:55, Roy Marples wrote: Pager output disappearing with the pager (I assume when asking the pager to exit) is an issue with the pager. I disagree. Disappearing output uses the "alternate screen" of a terminal so that the pager's output does not interfere with your non-reading

Re: [fossil-users] [PROPOSED FEATURE] Fossil commands output sent through a pager

2017-03-27 Thread Warren Young
On Mar 27, 2017, at 10:19 AM, Martin S. Weber wrote: > > On 03/27/17 01:55, Roy Marples wrote: >> Pager output disappearing with the pager (I assume when asking the pager to >> exit) is an issue with the pager. > > I disagree. Disappearing output uses the "alternate screen"

Re: [fossil-users] [PROPOSED FEATURE] Fossil commands output sent through a pager

2017-03-27 Thread Warren Young
On Mar 26, 2017, at 11:49 AM, Tomasz Konojacki wrote: > > On Sun, 26 Mar 2017 19:25:25 +0200 > Christophe Gouiran wrote: > >> I see that most of you complain about this proposed feature. > > TBH, many members of this list live in the UNIX greybeard

Re: [fossil-users] Old fossil (1.29) accessing current fossil trunk?

2017-03-27 Thread Stephan Beal
On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 9:19 AM, Stefan Bellon wrote: > would have to take a backup of the fossil in version 1 state? Or is > there any "go back to version 1 format" emergency way? > fossil 1 has a strict "artifact" format which v2 breaks (in that the hash lengths differ),

Re: [fossil-users] GitLab v. Fossil. Was: Eric Raymond (a.k.a. ESR) has published an SCM

2017-03-27 Thread Konstantin Khomoutov
On Sun, 26 Mar 2017 13:18:08 -0400 Richard Hipp wrote: > > http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=7448 > > http://www.catb.org/esr/src/ > > Thanks for pointing this out, Stephan. > > What intrigues me most here is not ESR's python-script wrapper around > RCS/SCCS, but rather the GitLab

Re: [fossil-users] Old fossil (1.29) accessing current fossil trunk?

2017-03-27 Thread Stefan Bellon
On Mon, 13 Mar, Richard Hipp wrote: > > The upgrade is simple. Just replace your current fossil executable > with a new one. Everything should work exactly as it did before. > There are no incompatibilities. The only difference is that Fossil > 2.1 will read and write the latest repositories