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),
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
On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 1:25 AM, Stephan Beal wrote:
> Yes, it can accept JSON input (even from the CLI). For the full details
> see:
>
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1fXViveNhDbiXgCuE7QDXQOKeFzf2q
> NUkBEgiUvoqFN4/view
>
> and:
>
> fossil help json
>
> doh - it
On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 11:06 PM, Stefan Bellon wrote:
> On Mon, 13 Mar, Ross Berteig wrote:
>
> > When fossil is configured to include JSON support it has a fossil
> > json command that consumes a JSON object full of command and
> > arguments and returns a JSON object of
On 3/14/2017 3:06 PM, Stefan Bellon wrote:
On Mon, 13 Mar, Ross Berteig wrote:
When fossil is configured to include JSON support it has a fossil
json command that consumes a JSON object full of command and
arguments and returns a JSON object of results. A similar feature is
available over
On Mon, 13 Mar, Ross Berteig wrote:
> When fossil is configured to include JSON support it has a fossil
> json command that consumes a JSON object full of command and
> arguments and returns a JSON object of results. A similar feature is
> available over HTTP(S) through URLs beginning with /json.
On Mon, 13 Mar, Richard Hipp wrote:
> I'm a little confused. If you need to continue using Fossil 1.29 for
> text output compatibility, then why is it a problem that you cannot
> "fossil update" to the latest trunk? After all, you won't be using
> the latest trunk, right?
Ha, right, that's a
On 3/13/2017 8:57 AM, Richard Hipp wrote:
On 3/13/17, Stefan Bellon wrote:
When upgrading from 1.24 to 1.29 years ago, the output of "fossil
annotate" changed and broke all our scripts (and even some customer
databases).
I expect even more incompatibilities when switching
On 3/13/17, Stefan Bellon wrote:
>
> When upgrading from 1.24 to 1.29 years ago, the output of "fossil
> annotate" changed and broke all our scripts (and even some customer
> databases).
>
> I expect even more incompatibilities when switching from 1.29 to 2.0
> and therefore
Sadly it is not that simple.
When upgrading from 1.24 to 1.29 years ago, the output of "fossil
annotate" changed and broke all our scripts (and even some customer
databases).
I expect even more incompatibilities when switching from 1.29 to 2.0
and therefore this is nothing that can be done in a
On 3/13/17, Stefan Bellon wrote:
>
> Is this (old) version not able to work with current trunk anymore? Do
> we have to upgrade to 2.0 or 2.1?
>
Correct. As of check-in
https://www.fossil-scm.org/fossil/info/7815d015f3b5a663 (2017-03-10)
the self-hosting Fossil repository
Hi all,
recently when updating our fossil trunk workspace with an old copy of
fossil (1.29) we are getting error messages as follows:
$ fossil version
This is fossil version 1.29 [3e5ebe2b90] 2014-06-12 17:25:56 UTC
$ fossil update
Autosync: http://www.fossil-scm.org/
Round-trips: 1 Artifacts
12 matches
Mail list logo