[fossil-users] anything speaking against fossil add --commit ?
Often I will run the following two commands: fossil add list of files ^add^ci (i.e., fossil ci list of files) immediately afterwards. Sometimes I forget the second step and then do some funny stuff (changing trunks, merging etc.) until I stumble over the uncommitted files. Is there anything speaking against adding a --commit (and maybe --message) option to add so that it'll commit immediately? -Martin ___ 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] Markdown engine integrated into fossil
On 2012-05-23 12:18 , Richard Hipp d...@sqlite.org wrote: Furthermore, even if you rename libupskirt to something that is completely benign and inoffensive, it will be difficult to rehabilitate the code. Do you mind explaining this bit please, Richard? TIA, -Martin ___ 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] Markdown engine integrated into fossil
On 2012-05-23 12:39 , Richard Hipp d...@sqlite.org wrote: On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 12:36 PM, Weber, Martin S martin.we...@nist.gov wrote: On 2012-05-23 12:18 , Richard Hipp d...@sqlite.org wrote: Furthermore, even if you rename libupskirt to something that is completely benign and inoffensive, it will be difficult to rehabilitate the code. Do you mind explaining this bit please, Richard? https://www.google.com/search?q=upskirt http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Upskirt Not that bit. The bit about even if you rename it to something that is completely inoffensive, it will be difficult to rehabilitate the code. Why is that? TIA, -Martin ___ 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] web page icon propagation
On 2012-02-16 12:41 , Thomas Stover c...@thomasstover.com wrote: I spoke too soon. I get fossil: unknown command: configure on all my installations. Do I need another build flag? It's easy actually. The full command is configuration, to which all of conf, config and even configur are valid prefixes/abbreviations. The command is not called configure, instead that's either some over-eager email software word completion while typing or simply a typo. Use fossil configuration, fossil config, fossil conf, whatever rocks your cradle. No special build flags necessary. Regards, -Martin ___ 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] same user, multiple logins: the problem and a potential solution
Ross Berteig: I should be possible to support more than one session cookie per user, but then you would need a process to occasionally purge stale sessions from the server. You could do that check on any session validation, if its been long enough since the last check. Or at least check a few sessions on each validation if that is expensive to do en masse. Yeah I was thinking the same thing. If you don't want it to become unbounded, add a configuration parameter to determine how many parallel sessions any given user can have with a sane default (possibly even 1, thus not changing the current behavior). I doubt (without measurements, which, of course, always is dangerous) that it would become expensive to do this (at least in comparison to all the other operations fossil is doing on the DB!), and I also, speaking as a user now, would enjoy having multiple log-ins available. That being said, I think the part where the IP is being woven into the hash should stay. Regards, -Martin ___ 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] authentication in JSON: anonymous vs. guest user
Right now for the fossil repository itself, I can read write some stuff, but I cannot read everything. For example, I cannot read the complete list of users. So the sentence As far as i can see so far, the only ops which _need_ to be authenticated (for purposes of a JSON interface) are write-ops is not necessarily true. Regards, -Martin ___ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
