Thus said Stephan Beal on Fri, 07 Aug 2015 20:16:01 +0200:
> Nothing negative, in any case - it's a long overdue feature.
Well, it's done:
http://www.fossil-scm.org/index.html/info/c73c95cc654b50db
Thanks for all the feedback.
Andy
--
TAI64 timestamp: 400055c9751c
__
Nothing negative, in any case - it's a long overdue feature.
- stephan
(Sent from a mobile device, possibly from bed. Please excuse brevity,
typos, and top-posting.)
On Aug 7, 2015 20:08, "Joe Mistachkin" wrote:
>
> Thanks for adding the tests. I think it looks great. Does anybody else
> h
Thanks for adding the tests. I think it looks great. Does anybody else
have
any feedback on the changes?
--
Joe Mistachkin
___
fossil-users mailing list
fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org
http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossi
Thus said "Joe Mistachkin" on Tue, 28 Jul 2015 21:02:49 -0700:
> It might be nice to have test coverage for the new command.
Ok, this has been added:
http://www.fossil-scm.org/index.html/artifact/c380f431db6dd227
Thanks for suggesting this as it was most instrumental in discovering a
segfault,
On Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 6:50 AM, jungle Boogie
wrote:
> Related to testing, have you or anyone used AFL[0] on Fossil? I know
> Michael (its creator) ran it against sqlite and reported dozens of
> findings to drh and as of 3.8.10[1], AFL is apart of the tests for
> sqlite.
>
> I'd run AFL against
On 28 July 2015 at 21:02, Joe Mistachkin wrote:
>
> Andy Bradford wrote:
>>
>> I think the changes in the check-in-edit branch are ready for a broader
>> audience and move to have it merged.
>>
>
> It might be nice to have test coverage for the new command.
>
> Since the underlying [newly] shared
Thus said "Joe Mistachkin" on Tue, 28 Jul 2015 21:02:49 -0700:
> It might be nice to have test coverage for the new command.
Yes, very good point. I'll add some later today (time permitting).
Thanks,
Andy
--
TAI64 timestamp: 400055b90a22
___
fossi
Andy Bradford wrote:
>
> I think the changes in the check-in-edit branch are ready for a broader
> audience and move to have it merged.
>
It might be nice to have test coverage for the new command.
Since the underlying [newly] shared code would end up being tested as well,
it would be even mor
Hello,
I think the changes in the check-in-edit branch are ready for a broader
audience and move to have it merged.
Key changes in branch:
Added new ``fossil amend'' command which has similar arguments found in
``fossil commit'' to allow altering tags on existing checkins from
command-li
9 matches
Mail list logo
