Re: [fossil-users] Merge question

[Stephan Beal]

On Mon, Sep 25, 2017 at 5:32 PM, Andy Goth  wrote:

> whatever was going on.  Might want to explicitly turn on more warnings
> like -Wunused or -Wall or even -Wextra to help spot these types of issues.)
>

Sidebar: i tried -Wall with fossil years ago but it didn't like sqlite3's
use of "long long", which isn't C89 (i'm not even sure it's C99, but it's
apparently supported by all compilers).

-- 
- stephan beal
http://wanderinghorse.net/home/stephan/
"Freedom is sloppy. But since tyranny's the only guaranteed byproduct of
those who insist on a perfect world, freedom will have to do." -- Bigby Wolf
___
fossil-users mailing list
fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org
http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users

Re: [fossil-users] Amended check-in time

[Andy Bradford]

Thus said Richard Hipp on Mon, 25 Sep 2017 16:04:32 -0400:

> It does work sometimes, at least: https://fossil-scm.org/fossil/info/1f378f9e3

I've  seen  it  work before  too,  so  I'm  not  sure why  it  would  be
different with  the steps Andy  Goth provided.  Guess it will  take some
investigation...

Andy
-- 
TAI64 timestamp: 400059c9d935


___
fossil-users mailing list
fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org
http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users

Re: [fossil-users] How to find out when a line was removed

[Richard Hipp]

On 9/25/17, John P. Rouillard  wrote:
>
> So do I need the exact revision where the line existed, or do I just
> need a revision earlier than when I think the line was last deleted?
>

Any version prior to where the line was deleted.  The reverse
annotation will tell you the next subsequent version where that line
was edited in any way.  That next change might not be the spot where
the line was finally deleted.  It might have just been modified.  In
that case, just repeat the process with the subsequent version until
you find the exact version where the line was deleted.
-- 
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

Re: [fossil-users] How to find out when a line was removed

[Richard Hipp]

On 9/25/17, John P. Rouillard  wrote:
>>
>>Example:  The line at
>>https://www.fossil-scm.org/fossil/annotate?origin=trunk=src/diff.c=d9ef474a1
>>is missing from trunk.  To find out where it was deleted, use the
>>following URL:
>>
>>https://fossil-scm.org/fossil/annotate?origin=trunk=src/diff.c=d9ef474a1
>
> Umm these two url's look the same except for the www.
>

Yes.  That was  copy/paste error.  The text should  read something like this:

Example: The line at
https://fossil-scm.org/fossil/artifact/2bc1234c?ln=49 is missing from
trunk.  To find out where it was deleted, use the following URL:

https://fossil-scm.org/fossil/annotate?origin=trunk=d9ef474a=src/diff.c

-- 
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

Re: [fossil-users] Amended check-in time

[Richard Hipp]

On 9/25/17, Andy Bradford  wrote:
> Thus said Andy Goth on Mon, 25 Sep 2017 10:45:23 -0500:
>
>> Has anyone tried  running these commands yet? I want  to see if anyone
>> else can replicate my problem.
>
> I  just tried  and was  able  to reproduce  the problem.  It happens  on
> rebuild whether  one does it via  the ``fossil amend'' command  or using
> the ``fossil ui'' to edit the checkin.

It does work sometimes, at least: https://fossil-scm.org/fossil/info/1f378f9e3

I did a rebuild after entering the change above.
-- 
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

Re: [fossil-users] Amended check-in time

[Andy Bradford]

Thus said Andy Goth on Mon, 25 Sep 2017 10:45:23 -0500:

> Has anyone tried  running these commands yet? I want  to see if anyone
> else can replicate my problem.

I  just tried  and was  able  to reproduce  the problem.  It happens  on
rebuild whether  one does it via  the ``fossil amend'' command  or using
the ``fossil ui'' to edit the checkin.

Andy
-- 
TAI64 timestamp: 400059c95c75


___
fossil-users mailing list
fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org
http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users

Re: [fossil-users] Amended check-in time

[Andy Bradford]

Thus said Andy Goth on Mon, 25 Sep 2017 10:45:23 -0500:

> Has anyone tried  running these commands yet? I want  to see if anyone
> else can replicate my problem.

Sorry, I misinterpreted your comment about having a bad timezone (except
in Narnia) as a retraction of your original problem.

And now you've issued a correction... Guess I'll have to try it now.

Andy
-- 
TAI64 timestamp: 400059c9590e


___
fossil-users mailing list
fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org
http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users

Re: [fossil-users] How to find out when a line was removed

[Richard Hipp]

On 9/23/17, John P. Rouillard  wrote:
>
> I am trying to find out when a line dissapeared from a file.
>

As of the latest version of Fossil (checked into trunk moments ago)
you can do this:

   fossil annotate $filename -r $oldversion -o trunk

$filename is the name of the file and $oldversion is some version
identifier (a label or a hash prefix) for a check-in that contains the
line that you are wondering about.  The "-o trunk" object is the new
magic.  The output shows first time each line of the file changes in
the sequence of check-ins going from $oldversion to trunk.  (You can,
of course, substitute some other version identifier for "trunk",
depending on your needs.)

Note that the first change to the line in question might not be the
specific change that deleted the line.  Instead it might just be an
edit of that line.  You might need to iterate the find the deletion
point, just as you would have to iterate to find the insertion point
for a line using an ordinary annotation.

The same feature is available for the /annotate webpage, except that
you use the "origin=trunk" query parameter.  You'll have to type in
the URL manually, as there is currently no hyperlink that provides the
"origin=" query parameter for you.

Example:  The line at
https://www.fossil-scm.org/fossil/annotate?origin=trunk=src/diff.c=d9ef474a1
is missing from trunk.  To find out where it was deleted, use the
following URL:

https://fossil-scm.org/fossil/annotate?origin=trunk=src/diff.c=d9ef474a1


-- 
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

Re: [fossil-users] Using Fossil with Apache Proxy

[Richard Hipp]

On 9/25/17, David Mason  wrote:
> I am trying things differently this year. I want to use one instance of
> fossil running proxied behind a firewall.  I have the following in my
> Apache conf file:
> 
>
>   ProxyPass http://127.0.0.1:8081
>
>   ProxyPassReverse http://127.0.0.1:8081
>
>   SetOutputFilter proxy-html
>
>   ProxyHTMLURLMap http://127.0.0.1:8081 /fossil
>
> 
>
> RewriteRule ^/fossil$ /fossil/ [R]
> and the forward proxy works, except the resulting page doesn't have the CSS
> and all the links are 127.0.0.1:8081 links instead of the right ones.
>

How are you starting up the fossil server?  Are you using the
--baseurl option so that Fossil knows how to construct URLs that point
to itself?

-- 
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

[fossil-users] Using Fossil with Apache Proxy

[David Mason]

I am trying things differently this year. I want to use one instance of
fossil running proxied behind a firewall.  I have the following in my
Apache conf file:


  ProxyPass http://127.0.0.1:8081

  ProxyPassReverse http://127.0.0.1:8081

  SetOutputFilter proxy-html

  ProxyHTMLURLMap http://127.0.0.1:8081 /fossil



RewriteRule ^/fossil$ /fossil/ [R]
and the forward proxy works, except the resulting page doesn't have the CSS
and all the links are 127.0.0.1:8081 links instead of the right ones.

Further, when I try to clone these via:

fossil clone
https://dma...@cps506.scs.ryerson.ca/fossil/f2017/A-dmason_ryerson.ca.fossil
cps506.fossil
it always fails (after asking for password, which I just set).

I'm certainly doing something silly wrong.  All help appreciated!

Thanks  ../Dave
___
fossil-users mailing list
fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org
http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users

Re: [fossil-users] Amended check-in time

[Andy Goth]

On 09/21/17 20:48, Andy Goth wrote:

On 09/21/17 19:51, Richard Hipp wrote:

I don't have any idea [why] the tags are not working for you.


Try this sequence:

f new repo.fossil
mkdir ckout
cd ckout
f open ../repo.fossil
touch xxx
f add xxx
f commit -date-override 2018-01-01 -m 'add xxx'
sleep 5
TIME=$(date +%FT%T)
sleep 5
f rm -hard xxx
f commit -allow-older -m 'remove xxx'
f timeline
f amend -date "$TIME" prev
f timeline
f rebuild
f timeline


Has anyone tried running these commands yet?  I want to see if anyone 
else can replicate my problem.


Correction: Replace "date +%FT%T" with "date -u +%FT%T" to avoid 
timezone problems.


--
Andy Goth | 
___
fossil-users mailing list
fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org
http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users

Re: [fossil-users] Merge question

[Andy Goth]

On 09/25/17 10:39, Richard Hipp wrote:

On 9/25/17, Andy Goth  wrote:


As far as I can tell, in the general case I described in my previous
email, assuming waiting was not an option, the best to do would have
been to explicitly specify the -baseline option when merging the child
branch and later when merging its parent branch.  But this MUST be done
in combination with additional testing to confirm that the child branch
wasn't actually dependent on anything in its parent branch.  And of
course the final merge also must be tested to confirm it didn't leave
anything out due to -baseline being forgotten or mistyped.  Thoughts?


I was thinking of changing --baseline so that it records the merge
baseline using a Q card instead of a P card, as if the merge were a
cherrypick.


Not a bad idea at all.  This avoids the second part of the problem quite 
nicely.  If I recall correctly, the Q card supports listing a range of 
merged check-ins even though this feature is never actually used in 
practice.


As for the user desire that a merge arrow be shown, I feel this would 
best be addressed by showing cherrypick and backout merges.  I wrote up 
this wishlist item eons ago but never got around to working on it.  Does 
anyone have any new ideas about this?


How should such alternative merge arrows be rendered?  Colors?  Can 
dashed lines be shown?  Can the arrowhead be a symbol such as a tiny 
circle or an X?


--
Andy Goth | 
___
fossil-users mailing list
fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org
http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users

Re: [fossil-users] Merge question

[Richard Hipp]

On 9/25/17, Andy Goth  wrote:

> As far as I can tell, in the general case I described in my previous
> email, assuming waiting was not an option, the best to do would have
> been to explicitly specify the -baseline option when merging the child
> branch and later when merging its parent branch.  But this MUST be done
> in combination with additional testing to confirm that the child branch
> wasn't actually dependent on anything in its parent branch.  And of
> course the final merge also must be tested to confirm it didn't leave
> anything out due to -baseline being forgotten or mistyped.  Thoughts?

I was thinking of changing --baseline so that it records the merge
baseline using a Q card instead of a P card, as if the merge were a
cherrypick.

-- 
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

Re: [fossil-users] Tech note search

[Andy Goth]

On 09/25/17 09:35, Chris Rydalch wrote:

Thanks so much Andy, this is great! So far so good on my end...


Merged to trunk, along with all the other recent developments.  Please 
update and test some more, if you don't mind.


--
Andy Goth | 
___
fossil-users mailing list
fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org
http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users

Re: [fossil-users] Merge question

[Andy Goth]

On 09/25/17 10:18, Richard Hipp wrote:

On 9/25/17, Andy Goth  wrote:

In response to Chris Rydalch saying that search-technote works for him,
in combination with it passing all my tests, I'd like to merge it to trunk.

What is the correct procedure for doing so?

At this point I'm inclined to just be patient and let
annotation-enhancements be merged first.  That would solve everything.


Merged now.


Thank you for your testing and your corrections.  I don't have access to 
any Ubuntu systems, so I didn't spot the original problem you came 
across.  (No clue why Ubuntu has -Werror on by default, or whatever was 
going on.  Might want to explicitly turn on more warnings like -Wunused 
or -Wall or even -Wextra to help spot these types of issues.)


As far as I can tell, in the general case I described in my previous 
email, assuming waiting was not an option, the best to do would have 
been to explicitly specify the -baseline option when merging the child 
branch and later when merging its parent branch.  But this MUST be done 
in combination with additional testing to confirm that the child branch 
wasn't actually dependent on anything in its parent branch.  And of 
course the final merge also must be tested to confirm it didn't leave 
anything out due to -baseline being forgotten or mistyped.  Thoughts?


--
Andy Goth | 
___
fossil-users mailing list
fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org
http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users

Re: [fossil-users] Merge question

[Richard Hipp]

On 9/25/17, Andy Goth  wrote:
> In response to Chris Rydalch saying that search-technote works for him,
> in combination with it passing all my tests, I'd like to merge it to trunk.
>
> What is the correct procedure for doing so?
>
> At this point I'm inclined to just be patient and let
> annotation-enhancements be merged first.  That would solve everything.
>

Merged now.

-- 
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

[fossil-users] Merge question

[Andy Goth]

In response to Chris Rydalch saying that search-technote works for him, 
in combination with it passing all my tests, I'd like to merge it to trunk.


What is the correct procedure for doing so?

If I do:

$ f up trunk
$ f merge search-technote -baseline root:search-technote -integrate

Then any future merge of annotation-enhancements will omit all changes 
made 2017-09-23 because the merge record will show that they were 
already merged due to being in the baseline of search-technote.  To 
correct, said future merge would have to explicitly use the -baseline 
root:annotation-enhancements option.


Instead I could cherrypick each of the five check-ins comprising the 
search-technote branch.  This would avoid the aforementioned problem 
but, in addition to being a pain in the butt to do, would also not put a 
merge arrow in the graph.  Of course, while said merge arrow is nice to 
see, its existence is responsible for said problem.


A third approach would be to construct an alternative 
annotation-enhancements branch made by cherrypicking each of the 
search-technote check-ins, but this new branch would be rooted on trunk. 
 Then merge that branch and be done.


What's the best way to handle this situation?

While on this subject, there are also a number of other changes on the 
annotation-enhancements branch that are unrelated to annotations.  What 
do we do with them?


At this point I'm inclined to just be patient and let 
annotation-enhancements be merged first.  That would solve everything.


Yet, my question remains.  What is the best way to handle merging a 
branch-to-a-branch back to trunk without immediately incorporating 
unrelated branch changes while still allowing said changes to be 
incorporated when the branch is later merged?


--
Andy Goth | 
___
fossil-users mailing list
fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org
http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users

Re: [fossil-users] Tech note search

[Chris Rydalch]

Thanks so much Andy, this is great! So far so good on my end...

On Sun, Sep 24, 2017 at 12:11 AM, Andy Goth  wrote:

> I implemented tech note search capability on the search-technote branch.
> Please have a look and let me know if it's good.  Maybe the way I named
> things isn't so great, I dunno, so feel free to fix style or other
> conventions.  If it's good, go ahead and integrate it to trunk.
>
> I opted to keep tech note searching largely separate from wiki searching
> because I feel tech notes serve a significantly different purpose.
>
> --
> Andy Goth | 
> ___
> fossil-users mailing list
> fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org
> http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
>
___
fossil-users mailing list
fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org
http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users