Re: [fossil-users] A-B comparison of proposed timeline changes

2017-12-05 Thread Dominique Devienne
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

Re: [fossil-users] fossil-users Digest, Vol 119, Issue 6

2017-12-05 Thread Richard Hipp
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

Re: [fossil-users] fossil-users Digest, Vol 119, Issue 6

2017-12-05 Thread Ron W
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,

Re: [fossil-users] Forgotten "Fossil 1.x" comment in add.c

2017-12-05 Thread Warren Young
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. ___

Re: [fossil-users] Fossil in Debian

2017-12-05 Thread Warren Young
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

Re: [fossil-users] Fossil in Debian

2017-12-05 Thread Richard Hipp
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

Re: [fossil-users] A-B comparison of proposed timeline changes

2017-12-05 Thread j. van den hoff
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

[fossil-users] Fossil in Debian

2017-12-05 Thread Roy Keene
-- 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

Re: [fossil-users] Forgotten "Fossil 1.x" comment in add.c

2017-12-05 Thread Warren Young
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

Re: [fossil-users] A-B comparison of proposed timeline changes

2017-12-05 Thread Richard Hipp
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

Re: [fossil-users] A-B comparison of proposed timeline changes

2017-12-05 Thread sky5walk
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 >>

Re: [fossil-users] A-B comparison of proposed timeline changes

2017-12-05 Thread Reimer Behrends
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