Re: [fossil-users] Unexpected merge conflict

2015-11-13 Thread Tony Papadimitriou
Sorry for the confusion. By “merge from trunk” I mean I’m in branch ‘trunk’ and from there I’m doing the merge. And, I’m merging the “check-in from the ... [other] branch” I mean the check-in which is part of the other part. I think I’m beginning to understand what’s going on. If I do a full

[fossil-users] Unexpected merge conflict

2015-11-13 Thread Tony Papadimitriou
Here’s a merge conflict I thought should have been resolved automatically: I have the trunk version from where the symbol RF_OUT is renamed to SRF_OUT in the branch version. It has never been renamed to SRF_OUT in the trunk version (yet). When trying to merge (--cherrypick, actually) from

Re: [fossil-users] Unexpected merge conflict

2015-11-13 Thread Stephan Beal
On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 4:20 PM, Tony Papadimitriou wrote: > <<< BEGIN MERGE CONFLICT: local copy shown first <<< > @?status RF_OUT,#?MsgOn,#?MsgOff,fWriteZ > === COMMON ANCESTOR content follows >

Re: [fossil-users] Unexpected merge conflict

2015-11-13 Thread Scott Robison
On Nov 13, 2015 9:15 AM, "Tony Papadimitriou" wrote: > > Sorry for the confusion. > By “merge from trunk” I mean I’m in branch ‘trunk’ and from there I’m doing the merge. > And, I’m merging the “check-in from the ... [other] branch” I mean the check-in which is part of the other

Re: [fossil-users] Unexpected merge conflict

2015-11-13 Thread Stephan Beal
On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 4:33 PM, Tony Papadimitriou wrote: > The important thing is that the *common ancestor* with regards to this > line of code is the local version, since it hasn’t changed in the trunk, > only in the branch. So, I expected all (accumulated) changes in the >

Re: [fossil-users] Unexpected merge conflict

2015-11-13 Thread Tony Papadimitriou
Yes, sorry, I didn’t mention that. ‘puts’ replaced ‘fWriteZ’ in the last (cherry-picked) check-in – not in the same check-in as the label rename. But, I think it’s irrelevant. The important thing is that the common ancestor with regards to this line of code is the local version, since it

Re: [fossil-users] Unexpected merge conflict

2015-11-13 Thread Scott Robison
On Nov 13, 2015 8:20 AM, "Tony Papadimitriou" wrote: > > Here’s a merge conflict I thought should have been resolved automatically: > > I have the trunk version from where the symbol RF_OUT is renamed to SRF_OUT in the branch version. It has never been renamed to SRF_OUT in the

Re: [fossil-users] In case of fire...

2015-11-13 Thread John Found
On Fri, 13 Nov 2015 09:27:54 -0500 Richard Hipp wrote: > https://twitter.com/bos31337/status/663954649922142208 > I saw once this personnel instruction: http://i.imgur.com/3POtveC.jpg But obviously (as always) the instructions does not agree with the real worlds. :D > --

Re: [fossil-users] Unexpected merge conflict

2015-11-13 Thread tonyp
I have to agree with your first four sentences. Your prove-it-to-yourself example, however, is quite different from my case where all changes happened in the same branch, and trunk was unaltered (with respect to the lines in question). Obviously, if the same line of code changes on both sides

[fossil-users] How to authenticate myself to push to a cgi-based repository

2015-11-13 Thread Angelo Bertolli
How do I authenticate myself to the cgi-based repository when I'm trying to push my changes back up? Here is what I'm doing: fossil clone fossil open echo "file1" > file1 fossil add file1 fossil commit At this point, the local commit is fine, but the autosync fails due to lack of write

Re: [fossil-users] How to authenticate myself to push to a cgi-based repository

2015-11-13 Thread Richard Hipp
On 11/13/15, Angelo Bertolli wrote: > How do I authenticate myself to the cgi-based repository when I'm trying > to push my changes back up? (1) Do your initial clone using your username/password: fossil clone http://use...@www.repo.org/path/to/repo The "userid@" part

Re: [fossil-users] Unexpected merge conflict

2015-11-13 Thread Scott Robison
If it would be helpful, I'd be glad to take a look at your repo, or a fabricated repo that demonstrates the same issue. Without the actual current state of the repo, it's hard to know what the exact problem is. Hence my previous guesses. I didn't write the merge code, but I once upon a time

Re: [fossil-users] Unexpected merge conflict

2015-11-13 Thread tonyp
The following Windows batch file will reproduce the condition I’m talking about (f = fossil): f new sample.fossil f o sample.fossil echo Hello > hello.txt f add hello.txt f com -m Initial echo Hello, World > hello.txt f com --branch other -m "Added World!" echo Computer

[fossil-users] In case of fire...

2015-11-13 Thread Richard Hipp
https://twitter.com/bos31337/status/663954649922142208 -- D. Richard Hipp d...@sqlite.org ___ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users