Re: [fossil-users] Fossil 2.1 upgrade path

On 3/13/17, Ross Berteig wrote: > > So to move an existing project to the latest fossil after an SHA3-named > artifact exists, it appears to be necessary to rebuild existing repos > with version 2.0 or later so the database schema don't include a > constraint that forbids

Re: [fossil-users] Fossil 2.1 upgrade path

On 3/12/2017 10:50 AM, Richard Hipp wrote: On 3/12/17, Piotr Orzechowski wrote: Can I jump directly from 1.37 to 2.1? Yes. Simply download and install 2.1 and you are done. Optional seconds step: Type "fossil hash-policy sha3" in a check-out directory of any

Re: [fossil-users] Fossil 2.1 upgrade path

Got it. Thank you again and have a nice day! With best regards, Orzech Dnia 12 marca 2017 19:54 Richard Hipp d...@sqlite.org napisał(a): It will be inferred the first time you push a new SHA3 commit.___ fossil-users mailing list

Re: [fossil-users] Fossil 2.1 upgrade path

On 3/12/17, Piotr Orzechowski wrote: > What should I do to make my existing repositories default to SHA-3? > Should I set this hash-policy to sha3 on my server-side repositories too > or maybe it will be inferred default after first SHA-3 commit pushed to > them? It

Re: [fossil-users] Fossil 2.1 upgrade path

What should I do to make my existing repositories default to SHA-3? Should I set this hash-policy to sha3 on my server-side repositories too or maybe it will be inferred default after first SHA-3 commit pushed to them? Regards, Orzech Dnia 12 marca 2017 19:22 Richard Hipp d...@sqlite.org

Re: [fossil-users] Fossil 2.1 upgrade path

On 3/12/17, Piotr Orzechowski wrote: > > So active checkout must have this setting set, but clones created with > Fossil 2.1 will use SHA-3 by default? No. If you create a new repository with 2.1, then it will use SHA3 by default. But existing repos will continue to

Re: [fossil-users] Fossil 2.1 upgrade path

Thank you very much! So active checkout must have this setting set, but clones created with Fossil 2.1 will use SHA-3 by default? With best regards, Piotr Dnia 12 marca 2017 18:50 Richard Hipp d...@sqlite.org napisał(a): On 3/12/17, Piotr Orzechowski fossi...@orzechowski.tech wrote: Can I jump

Re: [fossil-users] Fossil 2.1 upgrade path

On 3/12/17, Piotr Orzechowski wrote: > Can I > jump directly from 1.37 to 2.1? Yes. Simply download and install 2.1 and you are done. Optional seconds step: Type "fossil hash-policy sha3" in a check-out directory of any repository that you want to start using SHA3

[fossil-users] Fossil 2.1 upgrade path

Hello, thank you very much for this release. I have few self-hosted repositories that only I contribute to. What is my upgrade path? Can I jump directly from 1.37 to 2.1? Do I have to rebuild repositories, should I or maybe could I with some benefits? With best regards, Orzech

Re: [fossil-users] Fossil 2.1

 : Warren Young <war...@etr-usa.com> À : Fossil SCM user's discussion <fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org> Envoyé le : Vendredi 10 mars 2017 17h32 Objet : Re: [fossil-users] Fossil 2.1 On Mar 10, 2017, at 10:26 AM, Richard Hipp <d...@sqlite.org> wrote: > > Fossil vers

Re: [fossil-users] Fossil 2.1

On Mar 10, 2017, at 10:26 AM, Richard Hipp wrote: > > Fossil version 2.1 is now available from the download pages. …after 9 days from first commit to final release. Beat that, Git! ___ fossil-users mailing list

[fossil-users] Fossil 2.1

Fossil version 2.1 is now available from the download pages. Please let me know if you find any problems. The next check-in to the self-hosting Fossil repository will likely use a SHA3 hash. -- D. Richard Hipp d...@sqlite.org ___ fossil-users mailing

Re: [fossil-users] Fossil 2.1 menu scrunch.

On Mar 8, 2017, at 9:07 AM, sky5w...@gmail.com wrote: > > Yeah, I'm just pointing out a change from v2.0 and down. Are you sure it’s a change to the default Fossil skin? I’m a bit blinkered when it comes to such things, since I always customize the skin, so my Fossil skins never change from

Re: [fossil-users] Fossil 2.1 menu scrunch.

Yeah, I'm just pointing out a change from v2.0 and down. I think it's the 'underlining' effect that is taking extra room as the menu collapses with zoom. Some earlier versions don't even attempt menu wrap and make use of horizontal scrollbar. No biggie as I may be confusing stock skins with

Re: [fossil-users] Fossil 2.1 menu scrunch.

On Mar 7, 2017, at 9:58 AM, sky5w...@gmail.com wrote: > > But, the scrunch appears with no scrollbar. I’m not sure what behavior you’re expecting, but what I see looks like perfectly sane HTML rendering behavior. There isn’t enough room for “Download”, its padding, or the separator that’s

[fossil-users] Fossil 2.1 menu scrunch.

I am using Chrome and menu works when extending width of browser. But, the scrunch appears with no scrollbar. My zoom is 175%. https://www.reddit.com/r/fossil/comments/5y1ngw/fossil_21f32c36e58a_menu_scrunch_on_chrome/?ref=share_source=link Thanks for Fossil.

Re: [fossil-users] Fossil 2.1 beta. Was: Progress report of Fossil 2.x

On 3/6/17, Warren Young wrote: > On Mar 5, 2017, at 4:01 PM, Richard Hipp wrote: >> >> Please try out the new code and provide feedback. > > I build with parallel make almost all the time, and I got this error when > updating one of my fossil-scm.org trees

Re: [fossil-users] Fossil 2.1 beta. Was: Progress report of Fossil 2.x

On Mar 5, 2017, at 4:01 PM, Richard Hipp wrote: > > Please try out the new code and provide feedback. I build with parallel make almost all the time, and I got this error when updating one of my fossil-scm.org trees likely last updated on March 2:

Re: [fossil-users] Fossil 2.1 beta. Was: Progress report of Fossil 2.x

Team knows nothing about ergonomics, too ?(Poor of me)   Best Regards K. De : Lonnie Abelbeck <li...@lonnie.abelbeck.com> À : Fossil SCM user's discussion <fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org> Envoyé le : Dimanche 5 mars 2017 23h31 Objet : Re: [fossil-users] Fossil 2.1 beta. W

Re: [fossil-users] Fossil 2.1 beta. Was: Progress report of Fossil 2.x

On Mar 5, 2017, at 5:01 PM, Richard Hipp wrote: > The big change is that now Fossil will actually generate SHA3-256 > hashes for new artifacts, if you ask it to, or by default in new > repositories. See > https://www.fossil-scm.org/fossil/doc/trunk/www/hashpolicy.wiki for >

[fossil-users] Fossil 2.1 beta. Was: Progress report of Fossil 2.x

The code on trunk (https://www.fossil-scm.org/fossil/timeline?y=ci=trunk) beta for Fossil 2.1. Please try it out and report any changes or issues. The big change is that now Fossil will actually generate SHA3-256 hashes for new artifacts, if you ask it to, or by default in new repositories.

Re: [fossil-users] Fossil 2.1: Scaling

On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 6:30 AM, Richard Hipp d...@sqlite.org wrote: Ben Pollack's essay at http://bitquabit.com/post/unorthodocs-abandon-your-dvcs-and-return-to-sanity/ succinctly points up some of the problems with DVCS versus centralized VCS (like subversion). Much further discussion occurs

Re: [fossil-users] Fossil 2.1: Scaling

I’m going to start two different reply forks: I’ll reply to the Pollack article here, then send another message later to chime in on your proposal, drh. On Mar 2, 2015, at 5:30 AM, Richard Hipp d...@sqlite.org wrote: Ben Pollack's essay at

Re: [fossil-users] Fossil 2.1: Scaling

On Mar 2, 2015, at 5:30 AM, Richard Hipp d...@sqlite.org wrote: The key idea would be to relax the requirement that each client load the entire history of the project. Instead, a clone would only load a limited amount of history (a month, a year, perhaps even just the most recent check-in).

Re: [fossil-users] Fossil 2.1: Scaling

One question that arises is: how do I define what a server is? Can I get the complete repository history for everything else but get a more limited history for files that are larger than a certain size, or that have certain extensions? How would this work with sub-repositories (sorry, not versed

Re: [fossil-users] Fossil 2.1: Scaling

On 3/2/15, Richard Boehme rboe...@gmail.com wrote: One question that arises is: how do I define what a server is? Can I get the complete repository history for everything else but get a more limited history for files that are larger than a certain size, or that have certain extensions? That

[fossil-users] Fossil 2.1: Scaling

Ben Pollack's essay at http://bitquabit.com/post/unorthodocs-abandon-your-dvcs-and-return-to-sanity/ succinctly points up some of the problems with DVCS versus centralized VCS (like subversion). Much further discussion occurs on the various news aggregator sites. So I was thinking, could Fossil

Re: [fossil-users] Fossil 2.1: Scaling

On Mon, Mar 02, 2015 at 07:30:44AM -0500, Richard Hipp wrote: So I was thinking, could Fossil 2.0 be enhanced in ways to support scaling to the point where it works on really massive projects? I think the single biggest practical issue right now still goes back to the baseline manifests not

Re: [fossil-users] Fossil 2.1: Scaling

On 3/2/15, Joerg Sonnenberger jo...@britannica.bec.de wrote: On Mon, Mar 02, 2015 at 07:30:44AM -0500, Richard Hipp wrote: So I was thinking, could Fossil 2.0 be enhanced in ways to support scaling to the point where it works on really massive projects? I think the single biggest practical

Re: [fossil-users] Fossil 2.1: Scaling

On Mon, Mar 02, 2015 at 11:38:38AM -0500, Richard Hipp wrote: On 3/2/15, Joerg Sonnenberger jo...@britannica.bec.de wrote: On Mon, Mar 02, 2015 at 07:30:44AM -0500, Richard Hipp wrote: So I was thinking, could Fossil 2.0 be enhanced in ways to support scaling to the point where it works on