Re: [fossil-users] Any interest in testing/merging check-in-edit branch?

2015-07-17 Thread Andy Bradford
Thus said Stephan Beal on Fri, 17 Jul 2015 06:55:29 +0200: Or maybe it's just me! I disagree, I don't think it's you at all. Filtering problems are always due to faulty design or bad heuristics. If I filter email (or gmail in this case) that happens to be legitimate email, regardless of

Re: [fossil-users] Any interest in testing/merging check-in-edit branch?

2015-07-17 Thread Stephan Beal
On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 4:49 PM, Andy Bradford amb-fos...@bradfords.org wrote: Thus said Stephan Beal on Fri, 17 Jul 2015 06:55:29 +0200: Or maybe it's just me! I disagree, I don't think it's you at all. Filtering problems are always due to faulty design or bad heuristics. If I filter

Re: [fossil-users] Any interest in testing/merging check-in-edit branch?

2015-07-17 Thread Andy Bradford
Thus said Sergei Gavrikov on Thu, 16 Jul 2015 17:21:55 +0300: I also expected that 'fossil amend uuid' will spawn $EDITOR with an original check-in message likes 'fossil commit' does. But, I met cold silence. Probably, to support $EDITOR for 'amend-commit' isn't trivial and I cannot insist

Re: [fossil-users] Any interest in testing/merging check-in-edit branch?

2015-07-17 Thread Scott Robison
On phone, apologies for top posting. To me amend uuid should behave as much as possible like commit, though I can appreciate that some might disagree. On Jul 17, 2015 8:38 PM, Andy Bradford amb-fos...@bradfords.org wrote: Thus said Sergei Gavrikov on Thu, 16 Jul 2015 17:21:55 +0300: I also