On Tue, Dec 5, 2017 at 4:27 PM, Richard Hipp wrote:
> On 12/5/17, Reimer Behrends wrote:
> > Richard Hipp wrote:
> >> Which is better?
> >>
> >>A: https://www.fossil-scm.org/a/timeline
> >>B: https://www.fossil-scm.org/b/timeline
> >
> > I don't
On 12/5/17, Ron W wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 5, 2017 at 10:56 AM,
>
> wrote:
>>
>> Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2017 10:56:06 -0500
>> From: Richard Hipp
>> Subject: Re: [fossil-users] Fossil in Debian
>>
>> On 12/5/17, Roy Keene
On Tue, Dec 5, 2017 at 10:56 AM,
wrote:
>
> Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2017 10:56:06 -0500
> From: Richard Hipp
> Subject: Re: [fossil-users] Fossil in Debian
>
> On 12/5/17, Roy Keene wrote:
> > upstream doesn't make it easy,
On Dec 5, 2017, at 8:47 AM, Warren Young wrote:
>
> At minimum, that wiki article should be renamed
Never mind. I see now that the page is being maintained under its current name
to avoid breaking existing links on the web.
___
On Dec 5, 2017, at 8:47 AM, Roy Keene wrote:
>
> Version 2.2 is in Debian testing, has been for a while.
Thank you for chasing this on the back-channel, Roy. It’s good to know that
there is a binary version of Fossil 2.x in Debian current already, if you
absolutely cannot
On 12/5/17, Roy Keene wrote:
> upstream doesn't make it easy, with their download page that uses
> javascript to mangle the URLs, thus confounding Debian's automatic
> monitoring tools.
Do I understand correctly that "upstream" == "Fossil"?
You can always download the latest
On Tue, 05 Dec 2017 16:27:28 +0100, Richard Hipp wrote:
Please keep a close eye on the Fossil website and report any usability
issues.
just a thought: could/should the boxes+checkin messages be indented,
reflecting the horizontal position of the respective branch in the
-- Forwarded message --
Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2017 15:20:48 +
From: Barak A. Pearlmutter
To: Roy Keene
Subject: Re: Fossil in Debian
Version 2.2 is in Debian testing, has been for a while.
Been meaning to upgrade to 2.3 ... wait now
On Dec 2, 2017, at 5:00 AM, bytevolc...@safe-mail.net wrote:
>
> What's up with this comment in add.c starting at line 27:
It was written back when “Fossil 2.0” meant something different from what we
now call “Fossil 2.0”:
https://www.fossil-scm.org/index.html/wiki?name=Fossil+2.0
At
On 12/5/17, Reimer Behrends wrote:
> Richard Hipp wrote:
>> Which is better?
>>
>>A: https://www.fossil-scm.org/a/timeline
>>B: https://www.fossil-scm.org/b/timeline
>
> I don't see much of a difference,
Thanks for looking. But the original question is old, and the
I agree. Why does the [brief-hash] need to be a hyperlink and bracketed
when the Timeline time stamp has the same link?
On Tue, Dec 5, 2017 at 9:30 AM, Reimer Behrends wrote:
> Richard Hipp wrote:
>
>> Which is better?
>>
>>A: https://www.fossil-scm.org/a/timeline
>>
Richard Hipp wrote:
Which is better?
A: https://www.fossil-scm.org/a/timeline
B: https://www.fossil-scm.org/b/timeline
I don't see much of a difference, to be honest (but that may be because
I'm late to the party and the layouts have changed during the past
days). The
12 matches
Mail list logo