Thank you for your quick answer.
I run test-integrity and I found that both repositories are corrupted.
One says:
fossil: checksum mismatch on blob rid=58:
da39a3ee5e6b4b0d3255bfef95601890afd80709 vs
01f57728b3a5d55520becb489146d0a7f42f9638
The other says:
skip phantom 177
Hi,
I found another copy of the same repository which is up to date and
doesn't have this inconsistency.
This solves my current problem.
BTW, these repositories are quite small (~120K).
If you think that they can be useful for debugging, I can send them to you.
Thank you for your support,
Marco
On Tue, Aug 9, 2011 at 9:05 AM, Marco Maggesi marco.magg...@gmail.comwrote:
Thank you for your quick answer.
I run test-integrity and I found that both repositories are corrupted.
One says:
fossil: checksum mismatch on blob rid=58:
da39a3ee5e6b4b0d3255bfef95601890afd80709 vs
It appears that clearsign wasn't set (blank).
fossil set clearsign
clearsign
The default is OFF, right? Just to be sure:
fossil set clearsign 0
fossil set clearsign
clearsign (local) 0
Still getting:
fossil branch new Test
On Tue, Aug 9, 2011 at 10:28 AM, tpero...@compumation.com
tpero...@compumation.com wrote:
fossil branch new Test 5947928ba
Change the subject: Please help me to understand why people want to create
a new branch before adding changes to that branch, rather than just waiting
until
On Tue, 9 Aug 2011 10:58:02 -0400
Richard Hipp d...@sqlite.org wrote:
Please help me to understand why people want to
create a new branch before adding changes to that branch, rather than
just waiting until they check-in their edits? I'm not being
sarcastic or critical here. A lot of people
Personally, this is a habit I bring from git, mainly because I'm not aware
of any other way to doing things.
I was not aware of fossil commit -branch new-branch, seems like a much
better alternative.
Half the time I start hacking on something, then oh, darn I should have
started a branch before
On 08/09/2011 02:16 PM, Richard Hipp wrote:
da39a3ee5e6b4b0d3255bfef95601890afd80709 is the hash for a zero-length
object. Something is clearly messed up.
As a general rule of thumb, whenever mysteriously zero-length files crop
up, the first thing I check is whether anything's run out of disk
On 8/9/2011 10:58 AM, Richard Hipp wrote:
Change the subject: Please help me to understand why people want to
create a new branch before adding changes to that branch, rather than
just waiting until they check-in their edits?
In SVN (and possibly others), you have to create the branch first.
On 8/9/2011 11:04 AM, Gour-Gadadhara Dasa wrote:
Maybe the way how other DVCS work?
Which DVCS can create branch along with the commit?
I was thinking it was possible and I had done it in git, but I don't
remember how or see it in the documentation, so I think I was mistaken.
--
Joshua Paine
I often am planning a change or thinking ahead and will create the branch to
record my intentions before I've started coding. I do like the ability to
checkin changes to a branch but would generally not intentionally use it out
of the risk of forgetting that my changes are intended for a branch
On 8/9/2011 11:19 AM, Matt Welland wrote:
Note: It is annoying to me that fossil branch new foo won't simply
branch from the current node.
+1
By the way, how does update differ from co in your step 2 below?
If you have no edited files, they have the same effect. But if you have
some edits
On Tue, Aug 9, 2011 at 4:58 PM, Richard Hipp d...@sqlite.org wrote:
That seems like so much more trouble. What am I missing? Is it that
people are unaware that they can make edits that are destined to go into a
branch before that branch actually
In my experience it's that when i know i've
On Tue, 9 Aug 2011 17:04:04 +0200
Gour-Gadadhara Dasa g...@atmarama.net wrote:
Please help me to understand why people want to
create a new branch before adding changes to that branch, rather
than just waiting until they check-in their edits? I'm not being
sarcastic or critical here. A
On Tue, Aug 09, 2011 at 10:58:02AM -0400, Richard Hipp wrote:
On Tue, Aug 9, 2011 at 10:28 AM, tpero...@compumation.com
tpero...@compumation.com wrote:
Change the subject: Please help me to understand why people want to create
a new branch before adding changes to that branch, rather than
On Tue, 9 Aug 2011 08:19:46 -0700
Matt Welland estifo...@gmail.com wrote:
I often am planning a change or thinking ahead and will create the
branch to record my intentions before I've started coding. I do like
the ability to checkin changes to a branch but would generally not
intentionally
On Tue, Aug 09, 2011 at 11:06:23PM +0800, Ambrose Bonnaire-Sergeant wrote:
Personally, this is a habit I bring from git, mainly because I'm not aware
of any other way to doing things.
I was not aware of fossil commit -branch new-branch, seems like a much
better alternative.
Half the time
On Tue, Aug 09, 2011 at 11:27:09AM -0400, Joshua Paine wrote:
On 8/9/2011 11:19 AM, Matt Welland wrote:
Note: It is annoying to me that fossil branch new foo won't simply
branch from the current node.
+1
By the way, how does update differ from co in your step 2 below?
If you have no
I agree with the others, I usually start a branch as a part of the process
of working on some new feature. It just feels more organized than
remembering to decide what branch to use when I finally commit, or changing
the branch after the fact.
2011/8/9 Lluís Batlle i Rossell virik...@gmail.com
On Tue, Aug 9, 2011 at 10:58 AM, Richard Hipp d...@sqlite.org wrote:
The way I've *always* done things is:
(1) ... edit files
(2) fossil commit -branch new-branch
But I see many people want to do a 4-step process:
(1) fossil branch new new-branch
(2) fossil update
On Tue, Aug 9, 2011 at 9:25 AM, Ron Wilson ronw.m...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Aug 9, 2011 at 10:58 AM, Richard Hipp d...@sqlite.org wrote:
The way I've *always* done things is:
(1) ... edit files
(2) fossil commit -branch new-branch
But I see many people want to do a 4-step
So, how do you move commits in the trunk to a new branch after the fact.
Thanks,
Tony Perovic
-Original Message-
From: fossil-users-boun...@lists.fossil-scm.org
[mailto:fossil-users-boun...@lists.fossil-scm.org] On Behalf Of Joshua Paine
Sent: Tuesday, August 09, 2011 10:10 AM
To:
On Tue, Aug 09, 2011 at 01:01:55PM -0500, tpero...@compumation.com wrote:
So, how do you move commits in the trunk to a new branch after the fact.
Open the UI, click the checkin, then edit... and check the part about starts a
new
branch.
Regards,
Lluís.
-Original Message-
From:
Is there a way to do in from the command line?
2011/8/9 Lluís Batlle i Rossell virik...@gmail.com
On Tue, Aug 09, 2011 at 01:01:55PM -0500, tpero...@compumation.com wrote:
So, how do you move commits in the trunk to a new branch after the fact.
Open the UI, click the checkin, then edit...
On Tue, 9 Aug 2011, Richard Hipp wrote:
Change the subject: Please help me to understand why people want to create a
new branch before adding
changes to that branch, rather than just waiting until they check-in their
edits? I'm not being
sarcastic or critical here. A lot of people do
On Tue, Aug 09, 2011 at 11:33:19AM -0700, Gé Weijers wrote:
On Tue, 9 Aug 2011, Richard Hipp wrote:
Change the subject: Please help me to understand why people want to create
a new branch before adding
changes to that branch, rather than just waiting until they check-in their
edits?
On Tue, 9 Aug 2011, Lluís Batlle i Rossell wrote:
If you could just tell fossil that you intend to commit to a new
branch from the current workspace/checkout creating that extra
commit object could be avoided without risking a commit to the wrong
branch.
You can *later* change the branch,
I stumbled over this while I had a network outage...
$ until fossil configuration pull all fossil sync ; do echo; echo; date;
echo; echo; sleep 5 ; done
Bytes Cards Artifacts Deltas
Sent: 58 1 0 0
fossil: cannot connect to host
On Tue, 9 Aug 2011, Richard Hipp wrote:
On Tue, Aug 9, 2011 at 2:33 PM, Gé Weijers g...@weijers.org wrote:
If you create the branch first you cannot forget later and commit to the wrong
branch.
I beg to differ! Just this past Friday, I did three separate commits to SQLite
that went
So I wanted to use javadoc/scaladoc style documentation and take advantage of
fossils embedded documentation -- I put the scaladoc under repo/docco and
happily was going to http://server:port/repo/doc/trunk/docco/index.html - but
there noscript was already waiting for me, saying No, no!. I
It is more like a logical process. You want to work on something, create a
branch, work on it and commit. If you have to create a branch when committing,
you will have to remember if this is first commit in that branch or subsequent.
You commandline will also be different for first commit that
31 matches
Mail list logo
