Re: [fossil-users] Fossil omits the updates through update command.
Fossil update will 'move' your changes as well, if you have any. Revert will just overwrite the file, and you will lose the changes. I also agree that the difference between fossil update and fossil update files is a bit confusing. But rather then removing the feature, I'd just print an info message saying 'current checkout changed to ...' or 'current checkout did not change'. Currently, there is no way to tell the difference from the output of the command; you have to do fossil info to realize this. On Thu, Mar 17, 2011 at 1:15 PM, Ramon Ribó ram...@compassis.com wrote: What can you do with: fossil update ?VERSION? FILES... That you cannot do easily with? fossil revert ?-r REVISION? ?FILE ...? Or I am missing something or fossil update files... is redundant. RR 2011/3/17 Joshua Paine jos...@letterblock.com: On Mar 17, 2011, at 11:00 AM, johnfound johnfo...@evrocom.net wrote: On Thu, 17 Mar 2011 16:22:22 +0300, Konstantin Khomoutov flatw...@users.sourceforge.net wrote: That is, my understanding is that it's check-ins (changesets) that are versioned, not files, and so it's the relations between check-ins which are considered when doing merges. If so, then using fossil update ?VERSION? ?FILES syntax violate the Principle of least astonishment. The trouble with the principle of least astonishment is how unpredictable people's astonishment can be. Changing a particular file or files in my checkout to the version of those files in some past or other branch is not a daily need, but I wouldn't call it rare for me. SVN actually does keep track of the revision of individual files, which I always found actually got in my way when all I want to do is replace a file with a previous version. There may be an easier way, but in SVN I always ended up copying and pasting the file contents from a graphical history view. So a former SVN user could easily find the fossil behavior astonishing. It wasn't astonishing to me, and it was a welcome change, but then I had some intervening DVCS experience. Git has no 'update' but uses the checkout verb for switching to a different commit, and like fossil git allows you to checkout only specific files of a given revision. When you do, it behaves just like fossil update VERSION FILES--the file is changed, but no record is kept of what version it came from. I don't consider this a bug, and I would really hate to lose this capability I don't care if it gets a different name, though, if that satisfies others ___ 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 ___ 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 contribute?
Hi Richard, I looked at the agreement form, and it is pretty all-encompassing. Since my company integrates fossil into its product, the agreement seems to imply that all of that work would then belong to Hwaci. I am pretty sure your intent was to get the release on the contributions only, but the wording in clause 1 does not mention that. Also, do you want a hard copy of the signed form? On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 11:29 AM, Richard Hipp d...@sqlite.org wrote: On Sun, Feb 6, 2011 at 10:11 PM, Ivan Hamer tic...@gmail.com wrote: I would like to be able to send in some contributions, but couldn't find much information on the topic. There is a ticket on adding this info to the FAQ (http://fossil-scm.org/index.html/tktview?name=15dfbde729) Do what are the guidelines on how to contribute to fossil? Specifically, I am interested in: 1. Which branch to work on? 2. What to do with changes? (How to test? Do I create a patch? Where to send the patch?...) I am volunteering to create a wiki/faq/documentation page on this topic. I've been thinking I need to write all of this up. It has simply been crazy lately and I've had to focus on other priorities. In order to maintain clear title, I ask that all contributors sign a copyright release prior to getting check-in privilege. After receiving check-in privilege, new contributors are asked to store on branches only - at least until such time as I can evaluate their work. And, experimental changes always go on a branch. We desire to keep the trunk working and ready-to-use at all times. I need to work up checklists for coding style and design rules. I started on a testing checklist which you can see at http://www.fossil-scm.org/fossil/doc/trunk/test/release-checklist.wiki but it needs a lot of work yet. A lot of this I'll need to do since I'm the only one with the knowledge to do it. But I'd still appreciate any help and/or advice. ___ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users -- 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 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 contribute?
Oracle's agreement addresses the contributor as either programmer or company, which is a plus. I also find it easier to follow. On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 2:18 PM, Richard Hipp d...@sqlite.org wrote: On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 1:58 PM, Chad Perrin c...@apotheon.net wrote: On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 12:44:26PM -0500, Richard Hipp wrote: http://www.fossil-scm.org/fossil/artifact/17a59e2687887 - Or this? I have two comments about this, at this time: This agreement applies only to any software, documentation, scripts, of other content that has been deliberately uploaded to the public distribution of Fossil found at http://www.fossil-scm.org/. A. That should probably say or other content rather than of other content. B. You might want to specify that the upload in question has been made by the Programmer, or in explicit service of the agreement, so that the agreement cannot be construed to mean that Hwaci or some third party has found some code of Programmer's unbeknownst to Programmer and uploaded it without permission or knowledge of Programmer. I am not a lawyer, and this is not legal advice. Point B here is just a change that would make *me* feel a lot better if I was in the position of considering a contribution to Fossil at this time. Another reader suggested through a side-channel that I adapt the language here: http://oss.oracle.com/oca.pdf -- Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ] ___ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users -- 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 mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
[fossil-users] Frequent invocations of fossil from another application
My application invokes fossil through a system call. It tends to commit/tag/open frequently. It seems to be rather expensive way to talk to fossil. Is there a way to perhaps run fossil as a server and accept commands such as open/commit/tag to avoid multiple invocations of the executable? I am also open to other suggestions on how to speed things up. ___ 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] time skew message now appearing
I also noticed the time skew problem when I quickly add, commit, then tag the same file (from a script; not by hand). If interested, I can provide more details to reproduce. On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 11:56 PM, Ron Aaron r...@ronware.org wrote: On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 3:53 PM, Ron Aaron r...@ronware.org wrote: I'm now getting time skew... server time differs by 62.0 seconds whenever I update (the exact time varies). Is it taking 60 seconds to sync? no - just a sec ___ 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
