Re: [fossil-users] diff after update

diff --erent or diff --erance Scott Doctor sc...@scottdoctor.com On 9/11/2015 10:27 AM, Richard Hipp wrote: On 9/11/15, Warren Young wrote: diff --undo sounds like you’re asking it to undo the diff, which makes no sense. I agree. I'm just having trouble

Re: [fossil-users] diff after update

On 9/11/15, Warren Young wrote: > > diff --undo sounds like you’re asking it to undo the diff, which makes no > sense. I agree. I'm just having trouble coming up with an alternative. > > How does “fossil diff --last” strike you? Still a little generic, I think, but moving in

Re: [fossil-users] diff after update

On Sep 11, 2015, at 11:41 AM, Ron W wrote: > > On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 1:12 PM, Warren Young wrote: > > Though --from-undo is better in that it tells you what the option does, you > have to know that Fossil has an undo buffer to make sense of it. That’s

[fossil-users] diff after update

Dear list, Is there a way to get a diff between what I had in the disk before executing "fossil update" and after? I'd be happy to read the (fine) manual, but I cannot find the place. Thanks! Yours faithfully, Paolo ___ fossil-users mailing list

Re: [fossil-users] Why Hash

On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 4:04 PM, Michal Suchanek wrote: > On 11 September 2015 at 17:13, Noam Postavsky > wrote: >> On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 3:57 AM, Michal Suchanek wrote: >>> On 10 September 2015 at 19:23, Noam Postavsky

Re: [fossil-users] diff after update

Although I think --undo is not too bad as it clearly does not make sense to 'undo' a diff, another alternative that is less 'verbal' that might work is diff --back (as in "diff with what would be there if I were to go back, or back out the recent changes...") -Original Message-

Re: [fossil-users] Why Hash

On 11 September 2015 at 17:13, Noam Postavsky wrote: > On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 3:57 AM, Michal Suchanek wrote: >> On 10 September 2015 at 19:23, Noam Postavsky >> wrote: >>> For example see figure 3 of >>>

Re: [fossil-users] Why Hash

I am getting confuzzled. Could someone explain the difference between a leaf, branch, and fork. Scott Doctor sc...@scottdoctor.com -- On 9/11/2015 1:04 PM, Michal Suchanek wrote: On 11 September 2015 at

Re: [fossil-users] Why Hash

On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 10:15 PM, Scott Doctor wrote: > > I am getting confuzzled. Could someone explain the difference between a > leaf, branch, and fork. > In fossil a branch and fork are technically the same thing, the terms are just used in different contexts (branch

Re: [fossil-users] diff after update

On 9/11/2015 7:11 AM, Richard Hipp wrote: On 9/11/15, Stephan Beal wrote: On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 1:22 PM, Richard Hipp wrote: I'm not sure "--undo" is the right name for this option. Other suggestions? --from-undo or: --from undo (special-case

Re: [fossil-users] diff after update

On 9/11/15, to...@acm.org wrote: > Although I think --undo is not too bad as it clearly does not make sense to > 'undo' a diff, another alternative that is less 'verbal' that might work is > > diff --back (as in "diff with what would be there if I were to go back, or > back out

Re: [fossil-users] diff after update

On Sep 11, 2015, at 2:33 PM, Ross Berteig wrote: > > I guess the other question to ask is how many of us have a project with a > branch named "undo”? Branches don’t enter into it. The proposal was for “diff --undo”, not “diff undo”.

Re: [fossil-users] diff after update

On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 6:28 PM, Warren Young wrote: > > Let me put it a bit differently than before, since I don’t seem to be > getting my point across. When you say “fossil up” and get a whole pile of > changes, your next question is, “What exactly is the content of those >

Re: [fossil-users] Why Hash

On Sep 11, 2015, at 2:34 PM, Noam Postavsky wrote: > > Okay, if you define branch that way… It isn’t a question of philosophical semantics. Stephan is telling you a fact about how Fossil behaves, not offering a fuzzy definition. Maybe I’m being overly

Re: [fossil-users] Why Hash

On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 6:57 PM, Warren Young wrote: > > I wonder if this is an implementation detail leaking through into the UI, > though. Under what conditions, except for Noam’s contrived example with > hardcoded dates, is there a useful distinction between “hash” —

Re: [fossil-users] diff after update

On 9/11/2015 2:10 PM, Warren Young wrote: On Sep 11, 2015, at 2:33 PM, Ross Berteig wrote: I guess the other question to ask is how many of us have a project with a branch named "undo”? Branches don’t enter into it. The proposal was for “diff --undo”, not “diff

Re: [fossil-users] diff after update

On Sep 11, 2015, at 4:19 PM, Ross Berteig wrote: > > On 9/11/2015 2:10 PM, Warren Young wrote: >> On Sep 11, 2015, at 2:33 PM, Ross Berteig >> wrote: >>> >>> I guess the other question to ask is how many of us have a project >>> with a branch named

Re: [fossil-users] Why Hash

On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 5:28 PM, Warren Young wrote: > On Sep 11, 2015, at 2:34 PM, Noam Postavsky > wrote: >> >> Okay, if you define branch that way… > > It isn’t a question of philosophical semantics. Stephan is telling you a > fact about

Re: [fossil-users] Why Hash

On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 5:28 PM, Warren Young wrote: > It isn’t really a hash since it isn’t computed from the contents of the > artifact. It’s just a random number, expressed as a long hex string. It > *looks* like a hash, but it isn’t. Proof: > > cd ~/tmp > f new

Re: [fossil-users] Why Hash

On Sep 11, 2015, at 4:40 PM, Noam Postavsky wrote: > > On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 5:28 PM, Warren Young wrote: >> On Sep 11, 2015, at 2:34 PM, Noam Postavsky >> wrote: >>> >>> Okay, if you define branch that way…

Re: [fossil-users] Why Hash

On Sep 11, 2015, at 4:46 PM, Ron W wrote: > > The commit ID really is a hash. It is the hash of the manifest artifact. The > manifest's 'D Card' has the date/time stamp of the commit. Also, the > manifest's 'P card' refers to the parent commit(s). Therefore, the commit IDs

Re: [fossil-users] diff after update

Thus said Richard Hipp on Fri, 11 Sep 2015 10:11:30 -0400: > "fossil diff --versus-undo" maybe??? What if instead of making this a feature of ``fossil diff'' it became a feature of ``fossil undo?'' fossil undo --diff Andy -- TAI64 timestamp: 400055f36093

Re: [fossil-users] diff after update

On 9/11/15, Stephan Beal wrote: > On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 1:22 PM, Richard Hipp wrote: > >> I'm not sure "--undo" is the right name for this option. Other >> suggestions? >> > > --from-undo > or: > --from undo (special-case name) > The code on trunk now

Re: [fossil-users] diff after update

On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 1:12 PM, Warren Young wrote: > On Sep 11, 2015, at 8:11 AM, Richard Hipp wrote: > > Maybe "--from-undo" is slightly better, but not a great deal. > > Though --from-undo is better in that it tells you what the option does, > you have to

Re: [fossil-users] diff after update

On 9/11/15, Paolo Bolzoni wrote: > Dear list, > > Is there a way to get a diff between what I had in the disk before > executing "fossil update" and after? No there isn't. The question hasn't come up before. But now that you mention it, it seems like it might be

Re: [fossil-users] diff after update

On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 1:22 PM, Richard Hipp wrote: > I'm not sure "--undo" is the right name for this option. Other > suggestions? > --from-undo or: --from undo (special-case name) ? -- - stephan beal http://wanderinghorse.net/home/stephan/ http://gplus.to/sgbeal

Re: [fossil-users] diff after update

Clever, but awkward in my opinion; the first place to look for such a feature would be under diff command. At least for me, that is. My vote is for diff --from|--to undo, where 'undo' is a special tag, same as 'ckout' in different context. I think it fits in such paradigm nicely. The person

Re: [fossil-users] Why Hash

On Sep 11, 2015, at 5:27 PM, Ron W wrote: > > They will ask why isn't it a small number like, for example, SVN uses. Solution: use tags. :) > Then they ask how do we know it's really unique? By telling them (in > simplified terms) how it is computed, they more readily

Re: [fossil-users] diff after update

Thus said Steve Stefanovich on Sat, 12 Sep 2015 00:07:54 -: > The person who names branches 'undo' can be perhaps warned in the > command help to use the hash instead. I think Fossil should have as few reserved words in its interfaces as possible. If it must be part of ``fossil

Re: [fossil-users] diff after update

On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 5:14 PM, Andy Bradford wrote: > Thus said Richard Hipp on Fri, 11 Sep 2015 10:11:30 -0400: > > > "fossil diff --versus-undo" maybe??? > > What if instead of making this a feature of ``fossil diff'' it became a > feature of ``fossil undo?'' > >

Re: [fossil-users] diff after update

On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 6:07 PM, Steve Stefanovich wrote: > Clever, but awkward in my opinion; the first place to look for such a > feature would be under diff command. At least for me, that is. > > My vote is for diff --from|--to undo, where 'undo' is a special tag, same > as

Re: [fossil-users] diff after update

fossil diff -before or fossil diff -before-commit ? El 12/9/2015 1:14, "Andy Bradford" escribió: > Thus said Richard Hipp on Fri, 11 Sep 2015 10:11:30 -0400: > > > "fossil diff --versus-undo" maybe??? > > What if instead of making this a feature of ``fossil diff''

Re: [fossil-users] diff after update

On Sep 11, 2015, at 5:14 PM, Andy Bradford wrote: > > fossil undo --diff While I admire your judo skill, that’s even worse from an exposure of implementation detail standpoint. Also, it implies that you’re asking Fossil to undo changes, modified in some way using

Re: [fossil-users] diff after update

On 9/11/2015 3:28 PM, Warren Young wrote: On Sep 11, 2015, at 4:19 PM, Ross Berteig I personally think that "diff --from undo" is the best of all the proposals floated in this thread, and tend to assume that "undo" is an unlikely branch or tag name. I agree that it is

Re: [fossil-users] diff after update

On 9/11/2015 7:11 AM, Richard Hipp wrote: > > "fossil diff --versus-undo" maybe??? Along the same lines, how about: "fossil diff --updated" The semantics being it is a diff of the things you just updated (implicitly with respect to what they were before the update command). -- Shal --

Re: [fossil-users] diff after update

Cool, I've often wanted this feature. fossil diff --whatif On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 10:11 AM, Richard Hipp wrote: > On 9/11/15, Stephan Beal wrote: > > On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 1:22 PM, Richard Hipp wrote: > > > >> I'm not sure "--undo"

Re: [fossil-users] diff after update

On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 9:11 AM, Richard Hipp wrote: > On 9/11/15, Stephan Beal wrote: > > On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 1:22 PM, Richard Hipp wrote: > > > >> I'm not sure "--undo" is the right name for this option. Other > >> suggestions? >

Re: [fossil-users] Why Hash

On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 3:57 AM, Michal Suchanek wrote: > On 10 September 2015 at 19:23, Noam Postavsky > wrote: >> For example see figure 3 of >> http://fossil-scm.org/xfer/doc/trunk/www/branching.wiki >> >> Both check-ins 3 and 4 are

Re: [fossil-users] diff after update

On Sep 11, 2015, at 8:11 AM, Richard Hipp wrote: > > On 9/11/15, Stephan Beal wrote: >> On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 1:22 PM, Richard Hipp wrote: >> >>> I'm not sure "--undo" is the right name for this option. Other >>> suggestions? >>> >>

Re: [fossil-users] diff after update

diff --erence misspelled it Scott Doctor sc...@scottdoctor.com On 9/11/2015 10:38 AM, Scott Doctor wrote: diff --erent or diff --erance Scott Doctor sc...@scottdoctor.com On 9/11/2015 10:27 AM, Richard Hipp wrote: On 9/11/15, Warren Young

Re: [fossil-users] diff after update

diff --before(-update) On Fri, 11 Sep 2015 20:20:53 +0200, Warren Young wrote: On Sep 11, 2015, at 11:41 AM, Ron W wrote: On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 1:12 PM, Warren Young wrote: Though --from-undo is better in that it tells you what