[fossil-users] content does not mach sha1 hash

2011-08-09 Thread Marco Maggesi 
Hello,

I have two fossil repositories (the "local" one and the "remote" one) and I get 
the following error when I try to pull:
 "content does not mach sha1 hash"

So, first of all, I would like to establish if one or both repositories are 
corrupted.
Are there specific commands to check the integrity of a fossil repository?
I tried
fossil info
fossil rebuild
but none of them seems to be able to detect (nor fix) inconsistencies in my 
repositories.

I use fossil version 1.18 (on both machines).

Suggestions?

Thanks in advances.
Marco
___
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] content does not mach sha1 hash

2011-08-09 Thread Richard Hipp 
On Tue, Aug 9, 2011 at 8:25 AM, Marco Maggesi wrote:

> Hello,
>
> I have two fossil repositories (the "local" one and the "remote" one) and I
> get the following error when I try to pull:
>  "content does not mach sha1 hash"
>
> So, first of all, I would like to establish if one or both repositories are
> corrupted.
> Are there specific commands to check the integrity of a fossil repository?
>

fossil test-integrity

There are a lot of "test" commands.  Do "fossil test-commands" to see them
all.  But remember:  test-commands are unsupported, might not work, and
might change or disappear at any moment.  So don't get emotionally attached
to them.  If you really, really need a test-command to be supported, bring
it up on this list and we will talk about promoting it regular command.


> I tried
> fossil info
> fossil rebuild
> but none of them seems to be able to detect (nor fix) inconsistencies in my
> repositories.
>
> I use fossil version 1.18 (on both machines).
>
> Suggestions?
>
> Thanks in advances.
> Marco
> ___
> 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

Re: [fossil-users] content does not mach sha1 hash

2011-08-09 Thread Marco Maggesi 
Thank you for your quick answer.

I run test-integrity and I found that both repositories are corrupted.
One says:

fossil: checksum mismatch on blob rid=58:
da39a3ee5e6b4b0d3255bfef95601890afd80709 vs
01f57728b3a5d55520becb489146d0a7f42f9638

The other says:

skip phantom 177 ccc986b41c2a37fb86a8267d2dd0ac0b17e12bc9
fossil: checksum mismatch on blob rid=178:
da39a3ee5e6b4b0d3255bfef95601890afd80709 vs
15e01a5726c26fe931d4b833215defd17ec9b3ae

Now what I am supposed to do to try to solve this situation?
Can I hope to recover from this inconsistency?
Thanks again.
M.


2011/8/9 Richard Hipp :
>
>
> On Tue, Aug 9, 2011 at 8:25 AM, Marco Maggesi 
> wrote:
>>
>> Hello,
>>
>> I have two fossil repositories (the "local" one and the "remote" one) and
>> I get the following error when I try to pull:
>>  "content does not mach sha1 hash"
>>
>> So, first of all, I would like to establish if one or both repositories
>> are corrupted.
>> Are there specific commands to check the integrity of a fossil repository?
>
> fossil test-integrity
>
> There are a lot of "test" commands.  Do "fossil test-commands" to see them
> all.  But remember:  test-commands are unsupported, might not work, and
> might change or disappear at any moment.  So don't get emotionally attached
> to them.  If you really, really need a test-command to be supported, bring
> it up on this list and we will talk about promoting it regular command.
>
>>
>> I tried
>> fossil info
>> fossil rebuild
>> but none of them seems to be able to detect (nor fix) inconsistencies in
>> my repositories.
>>
>> I use fossil version 1.18 (on both machines).
>>
>> Suggestions?
>>
>> Thanks in advances.
>> Marco
>> ___
>> 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] content does not mach sha1 hash

2011-08-09 Thread Marco Maggesi 
Hi,
I found another copy of the same repository which is up to date and
doesn't have this inconsistency.
This solves my current problem.

BTW, these repositories are quite small (~120K).
If you think that they can be useful for debugging, I can send them to you.

Thank you for your support,
Marco

2011/8/9 Marco Maggesi :
> Thank you for your quick answer.
>
> I run test-integrity and I found that both repositories are corrupted.
> One says:
>
> fossil: checksum mismatch on blob rid=58:
> da39a3ee5e6b4b0d3255bfef95601890afd80709 vs
> 01f57728b3a5d55520becb489146d0a7f42f9638
>
> The other says:
>
> skip phantom 177 ccc986b41c2a37fb86a8267d2dd0ac0b17e12bc9
> fossil: checksum mismatch on blob rid=178:
> da39a3ee5e6b4b0d3255bfef95601890afd80709 vs
> 15e01a5726c26fe931d4b833215defd17ec9b3ae
>
> Now what I am supposed to do to try to solve this situation?
> Can I hope to recover from this inconsistency?
> Thanks again.
> M.
>
>
> 2011/8/9 Richard Hipp :
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Aug 9, 2011 at 8:25 AM, Marco Maggesi 
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> I have two fossil repositories (the "local" one and the "remote" one) and
>>> I get the following error when I try to pull:
>>>  "content does not mach sha1 hash"
>>>
>>> So, first of all, I would like to establish if one or both repositories
>>> are corrupted.
>>> Are there specific commands to check the integrity of a fossil repository?
>>
>> fossil test-integrity
>>
>> There are a lot of "test" commands.  Do "fossil test-commands" to see them
>> all.  But remember:  test-commands are unsupported, might not work, and
>> might change or disappear at any moment.  So don't get emotionally attached
>> to them.  If you really, really need a test-command to be supported, bring
>> it up on this list and we will talk about promoting it regular command.
>>
>>>
>>> I tried
>>> fossil info
>>> fossil rebuild
>>> but none of them seems to be able to detect (nor fix) inconsistencies in
>>> my repositories.
>>>
>>> I use fossil version 1.18 (on both machines).
>>>
>>> Suggestions?
>>>
>>> Thanks in advances.
>>> Marco
>>> ___
>>> 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] content does not mach sha1 hash

2011-08-09 Thread Richard Hipp 
On Tue, Aug 9, 2011 at 9:05 AM, Marco Maggesi wrote:

> Thank you for your quick answer.
>
> I run test-integrity and I found that both repositories are corrupted.
> One says:
>
> fossil: checksum mismatch on blob rid=58:
> da39a3ee5e6b4b0d3255bfef95601890afd80709 vs
> 01f57728b3a5d55520becb489146d0a7f42f9638
>

da39a3ee5e6b4b0d3255bfef95601890afd80709 is the hash for a zero-length
object.  Something is clearly messed up.

Can you send me both repos via private email so that I can investigate
further?


>
> The other says:
>
> skip phantom 177 ccc986b41c2a37fb86a8267d2dd0ac0b17e12bc9
> fossil: checksum mismatch on blob rid=178:
> da39a3ee5e6b4b0d3255bfef95601890afd80709 vs
> 15e01a5726c26fe931d4b833215defd17ec9b3ae
>
> Now what I am supposed to do to try to solve this situation?
> Can I hope to recover from this inconsistency?
> Thanks again.
> M.
>
>
> 2011/8/9 Richard Hipp :
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Aug 9, 2011 at 8:25 AM, Marco Maggesi 
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> Hello,
> >>
> >> I have two fossil repositories (the "local" one and the "remote" one)
> and
> >> I get the following error when I try to pull:
> >>  "content does not mach sha1 hash"
> >>
> >> So, first of all, I would like to establish if one or both repositories
> >> are corrupted.
> >> Are there specific commands to check the integrity of a fossil
> repository?
> >
> > fossil test-integrity
> >
> > There are a lot of "test" commands.  Do "fossil test-commands" to see
> them
> > all.  But remember:  test-commands are unsupported, might not work, and
> > might change or disappear at any moment.  So don't get emotionally
> attached
> > to them.  If you really, really need a test-command to be supported,
> bring
> > it up on this list and we will talk about promoting it regular command.
> >
> >>
> >> I tried
> >> fossil info
> >> fossil rebuild
> >> but none of them seems to be able to detect (nor fix) inconsistencies in
> >> my repositories.
> >>
> >> I use fossil version 1.18 (on both machines).
> >>
> >> Suggestions?
> >>
> >> Thanks in advances.
> >> Marco
> >> ___
> >> 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
>



-- 
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] Unable to sign manifest

2011-08-09 Thread tpero...@compumation.com 
It appears that clearsign wasn't set (blank).

fossil set clearsign

clearsign

The default is OFF, right? Just to be sure:

fossil set clearsign 0
fossil set clearsign
clearsign   (local) 0

Still getting:

fossil branch new Test 5947928ba

'gpg' is not recognized as an internal or external command, operable program or 
batch file.
unable to sign manifest. continue (Y/N)?

Downloaded and installed gpg4win. Now I get:

fossil branch new Test 5947928ba

gpg: no default secret ket: No secret key
gpg: out-63CA97DF55704B6DE39: clearsign failed: No secret key
unable to sign manifest. continue (n/N)?

Removed gpg4win then tried again:

'gpg' is not recognized as an internal or external command, operable program or 
batch file.
unable to sign manifest. continue (Y/N)?

Clearly, fossil is still trying to sign the manifest.

If I continue by entering Y then the branch gets created in all cases. However, 
this is messing me up because I'm trying to automate this.

Searching the source code for "unable to sign manifest" I found this in 
branch.c:

void branch_new(void)
...
noSign = find_option("nosign","",0)!=0;
...

Tried the undocumented --nosign option:

fossil branch new Test 5947928ba --nosign
New branch: 121b842396960a83e2064216678b34cc7a5460d3

So, I'm good for now but please add the --nosign option to fossil help branch 
for the next guy.

Thanks again.
Tony Perovic

From: fossil-users-boun...@lists.fossil-scm.org 
[mailto:fossil-users-boun...@lists.fossil-scm.org] On Behalf Of Stephan Beal
Sent: Monday, August 08, 2011 4:58 PM
To: fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org
Subject: Re: [fossil-users] Unable to sign manifest

On Mon, Aug 8, 2011 at 11:43 PM, 
tpero...@compumation.com 
mailto:tpero...@compumation.com>> wrote:
fossil unset pgp-command

fossil branch new Test 5947928ba

'in-B1C64C8EF29A42586A91' is not recognized as an internal or external command,

That's weird, but you can try:

fossil set clearsign 0

as a workaround for the time being.

--
- stephan beal
http://wanderinghorse.net/home/stephan/
___
fossil-users mailing list
fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org
http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users

[fossil-users] Why do people create branches as a separate step? Was: Unable to sign manifest

2011-08-09 Thread Richard Hipp 
On Tue, Aug 9, 2011 at 10:28 AM, tpero...@compumation.com <
tpero...@compumation.com> wrote:

>
>
> fossil branch new Test 5947928ba
>
>
>
>
>
Change the subject:  Please help me to understand why people want to create
a new branch before adding changes to that branch, rather than just waiting
until they check-in their edits?  I'm not being sarcastic or critical here.
A lot of people do this and I sincerely want to understand the motivation.

The way I've *always* done things is:

(1)  ... edit files
(2)  fossil commit -branch new-branch

But I see many people want to do a 4-step process:

(1)  fossil branch new new-branch
(2)  fossil update new-branch
(3)  ... edit files
(4)  fossil commit

That seems like so much more trouble.  What am I missing?  Is it that people
are unaware that they can make edits that are destined to go into a branch
before that branch actually exists?  Do I need to improve on the
documentation?  Or does creating the branch first, before making file edits,
just fit most peoples mental model better?  Are there some advantages to
creating branches in advance that I am missing?

Part of the motivation for this question is that, because I never use
"fossil branch new" myself, there tend to be more bugs in that command than
in the other commands that I use daily.  If there is a good reason to do
"fossil branch new" then maybe I'll start using it myself and those bugs
will get fixed sooner.  Or if not, maybe I'll deprecate "fossil branch new"
- or at least print a warning and ask for confirmation: "Creating branches
ahead of check-ins is unnecessary.  Are you sure you want to do this? (y/N)"

Please explain.  Thanks!

-- 
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] Why do people create branches as a separate step? Was: Unable to sign manifest

2011-08-09 Thread Gour-Gadadhara Dasa 
On Tue, 9 Aug 2011 10:58:02 -0400
Richard Hipp  wrote:

> Please help me to understand why people want to
> create a new branch before adding changes to that branch, rather than
> just waiting until they check-in their edits?  I'm not being
> sarcastic or critical here. A lot of people do this and I sincerely
> want to understand the motivation.

Maybe the way how other DVCS work?

Which DVCS can create branch along with the commit?


Sincerely,
Gour


-- 
“In the material world, conceptions of good and bad are
all mental speculations…” (Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu)

http://atmarama.net | Hlapicina (Croatia) | GPG: 52B5C810




signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
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] Why do people create branches as a separate step? Was: Unable to sign manifest

2011-08-09 Thread Ambrose Bonnaire-Sergeant 
Personally, this is a habit I bring from git, mainly because I'm not aware
of any other way to doing things.

I was not aware of fossil commit -branch new-branch, seems like a much
better alternative.

Half the time I start hacking on something, then "oh, darn I should have
started a branch before I started". This seems much superior.

Thanks,
Ambrose
___
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] content does not mach sha1 hash

2011-08-09 Thread Alaric Snell-Pym 
On 08/09/2011 02:16 PM, Richard Hipp wrote:

> da39a3ee5e6b4b0d3255bfef95601890afd80709 is the hash for a zero-length
> object.  Something is clearly messed up.

As a general rule of thumb, whenever mysteriously zero-length files crop
up, the first thing I check is whether anything's run out of disk space
at any point...

...shortage of disk space can result in files being creatable (taking up
already-allocated space in inode tables and directory entries) but then
not being writable (leading to zero-length files).

ABS

--
Alaric Snell-Pym
http://www.snell-pym.org.uk/alaric/
___
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] Why do people create branches as a separate step? Was: Unable to sign manifest

2011-08-09 Thread Joshua Paine 
On 8/9/2011 10:58 AM, Richard Hipp wrote:
> Change the subject:  Please help me to understand why people want to
> create a new branch before adding changes to that branch, rather than
> just waiting until they check-in their edits?

In SVN (and possibly others), you have to create the branch first. In 
Git I still try to make the branch first, because I don't know how to 
move a commit to a new branch if I forget to add the new branch argument 
when I commit. The GUI tools I've used for SVN and Git didn't make it 
easy to put a commit on a new branch.

In fossil I often just work and worry about branches later, sometimes 
several commits later, because I know it's really easy to change it. In 
those cases, I've usually started working on something and realized part 
way in that I had better branch for this--a totally stress-free 
realization with fossil. But sometimes I still make the branch first, 
because sometimes my thought process begins with "Now I'm going to start 
on New Feature X," and since I've just decided that, I may as well make 
some manifestation of my intention.

I like that both ways are supported, along with the ability to make new 
branches after the fact.

-- 
Joshua Paine
LetterBlock: Web Applications Built With Joy
http://letterblock.com/
301-576-1920
___
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] Why do people create branches as a separate step? Was: Unable to sign manifest

2011-08-09 Thread Joshua Paine 
On 8/9/2011 11:04 AM, Gour-Gadadhara Dasa wrote:
> Maybe the way how other DVCS work?
> Which DVCS can create branch along with the commit?

I was thinking it was possible and I had done it in git, but I don't 
remember how or see it in the documentation, so I think I was mistaken.

-- 
Joshua Paine
LetterBlock: Web Applications Built With Joy
http://letterblock.com/
301-576-1920
___
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] Why do people create branches as a separate step? Was: Unable to sign manifest

2011-08-09 Thread Matt Welland 
I often am planning a change or thinking ahead and will create the branch to
record my intentions before I've started coding. I do like the ability to
checkin changes to a branch but would generally not intentionally use it out
of the risk of forgetting that my changes are intended for a branch and then
checking them in to the current branch.

Note: It is annoying to me that "fossil branch new foo" won't simply branch
from the current node.

By the way, how does "update" differ from "co" in your step 2 below?

On Tue, Aug 9, 2011 at 7:58 AM, Richard Hipp  wrote:

> On Tue, Aug 9, 2011 at 10:28 AM, tpero...@compumation.com <
> tpero...@compumation.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> fossil branch new Test 5947928ba
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
> Change the subject:  Please help me to understand why people want to create
> a new branch before adding changes to that branch, rather than just waiting
> until they check-in their edits?  I'm not being sarcastic or critical here.
> A lot of people do this and I sincerely want to understand the motivation.
>
> The way I've *always* done things is:
>
> (1)  ... edit files
> (2)  fossil commit -branch new-branch
>
> But I see many people want to do a 4-step process:
>
> (1)  fossil branch new new-branch
> (2)  fossil update new-branch
> (3)  ... edit files
> (4)  fossil commit
>
> That seems like so much more trouble.  What am I missing?  Is it that
> people are unaware that they can make edits that are destined to go into a
> branch before that branch actually exists?  Do I need to improve on the
> documentation?  Or does creating the branch first, before making file edits,
> just fit most peoples mental model better?  Are there some advantages to
> creating branches in advance that I am missing?
>
> Part of the motivation for this question is that, because I never use
> "fossil branch new" myself, there tend to be more bugs in that command than
> in the other commands that I use daily.  If there is a good reason to do
> "fossil branch new" then maybe I'll start using it myself and those bugs
> will get fixed sooner.  Or if not, maybe I'll deprecate "fossil branch new"
> - or at least print a warning and ask for confirmation: "Creating branches
> ahead of check-ins is unnecessary.  Are you sure you want to do this? (y/N)"
>
> Please explain.  Thanks!
>
> --
> 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] Why do people create branches as a separate step? Was: Unable to sign manifest

2011-08-09 Thread Joshua Paine 
On 8/9/2011 11:19 AM, Matt Welland wrote:
> Note: It is annoying to me that "fossil branch new foo" won't simply
> branch from the current node.

+1

> By the way, how does "update" differ from "co" in your step 2 below?

If you have no edited files, they have the same effect. But if you have 
some edits that are not yet committed, co will fail unless called with 
--force, in which case it will overwrite, whereas update will merge your 
uncommitted changes in to the new branch's files as uncommitted changes.

-- 
Joshua Paine
LetterBlock: Web Applications Built With Joy
http://letterblock.com/
301-576-1920
___
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] Why do people create branches as a separate step? Was: Unable to sign manifest

2011-08-09 Thread Stephan Beal 
On Tue, Aug 9, 2011 at 4:58 PM, Richard Hipp  wrote:

> That seems like so much more trouble.  What am I missing?  Is it that
> people are unaware that they can make edits that are destined to go into a
> branch before that branch actually
>

In my experience it's that when i know i've reached a branch point i clean
up my trunk, get it comitted, create the branch, and continue work from
there. i don't "spontaneously trunk", though i'm sure many do.


> Part of the motivation for this question is that, because I never use
> "fossil branch new" myself, there tend to be more bugs in that command than
> in the other commands that I use daily.  If there is a good reason to do
> "fossil branch new" then maybe I'll start using it myself and those bugs
> will get fixed sooner.  Or if not, maybe I'll deprecate "fossil branch new"
> - or at least print a warning and ask for confirmation: "Creating branches
> ahead of check-ins is unnecessary.  Are you sure you want to do this? (y/N)"
>

i would be really annoyed by such a question - it's a perfect example of
software trying to go too far in its assumptions.


> Please explain.  Thanks!
>

It's simply a different way of doing it.

-- 
- stephan beal
http://wanderinghorse.net/home/stephan/
___
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] Why do people create branches as a separate step? Was: Unable to sign manifest

2011-08-09 Thread Konstantin Khomoutov 
On Tue, 9 Aug 2011 17:04:04 +0200
Gour-Gadadhara Dasa  wrote:

> > Please help me to understand why people want to
> > create a new branch before adding changes to that branch, rather
> > than just waiting until they check-in their edits?  I'm not being
> > sarcastic or critical here. A lot of people do this and I sincerely
> > want to understand the motivation.
> 
> Maybe the way how other DVCS work?
> 
> Which DVCS can create branch along with the commit?
Basically any, I presume, which does not overwrite (reset or whatever
you call it) local modifications when updating the work tree (work
directory) to the new branch's tip.
Hence from my personal experience I can say that Git and Subversion
allow to do this.
___
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] Why do people create branches as a separate step? Was: Unable to sign manifest

2011-08-09 Thread Lluís Batlle i Rossell 
On Tue, Aug 09, 2011 at 10:58:02AM -0400, Richard Hipp wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 9, 2011 at 10:28 AM, tpero...@compumation.com <
> tpero...@compumation.com> wrote:
> Change the subject:  Please help me to understand why people want to create
> a new branch before adding changes to that branch, rather than just waiting
> until they check-in their edits?  I'm not being sarcastic or critical here.
> A lot of people do this and I sincerely want to understand the motivation.
> 
> The way I've *always* done things is:
> 
> (1)  ... edit files
> (2)  fossil commit -branch new-branch

We very early discovered the "-b" parameter to "commit", and that's what we use
since then, but at our very first use of fossil, we only found "branch new" to 
create
a branch.

So, "branch new" was what we found first. Maybe the documentation about "branch
new" could explain about why would someone want to use it, explaining the other
possibilities.

I would not mind "branch new" deprecated.

Thank yu,
Lluís.
___
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] Why do people create branches as a separate step? Was: Unable to sign manifest

2011-08-09 Thread Konstantin Khomoutov 
On Tue, 9 Aug 2011 08:19:46 -0700
Matt Welland  wrote:

> I often am planning a change or thinking ahead and will create the
> branch to record my intentions before I've started coding. I do like
> the ability to checkin changes to a branch but would generally not
> intentionally use it out of the risk of forgetting that my changes
> are intended for a branch and then checking them in to the current
> branch.
I'd like to second all written above.
This is simply a mental model thing: "oh, these changes I've just made
should better be on the new branch" versus "now I want to implement a
new feature, so let's fork a new branch now and start coding *on it*".
Both are valid on different occasions.
 
> Note: It is annoying to me that "fossil branch new foo" won't simply
> branch from the current node.
Absolutely agreed.
I miss Git's `git checkout -b newbranch` encantation which stands for
fossil branch new newbranch
fossil update newbranch
in fossil, which is barely a pleasure to use.

By the way, could it be possible to implement such "I want to start a
new branch now" without recording of any new artifacts but instead by
just creating some record (in _FOSSIL_, presumably), that the user
recorded her intention for the next commit she'll make to start a new
branch?  That would be more in a fossil's style of managing branches, I
feel.
___
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] Why do people create branches as a separate step? Was: Unable to sign manifest

2011-08-09 Thread Lluís Batlle i Rossell 
On Tue, Aug 09, 2011 at 11:06:23PM +0800, Ambrose Bonnaire-Sergeant wrote:
> Personally, this is a habit I bring from git, mainly because I'm not aware
> of any other way to doing things.
> 
> I was not aware of fossil commit -branch new-branch, seems like a much
> better alternative.
> 
> Half the time I start hacking on something, then "oh, darn I should have
> started a branch before I started". This seems much superior.

You can even set the branch *after* you commit, through the web ui.
___
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] Why do people create branches as a separate step? Was: Unable to sign manifest

2011-08-09 Thread Lluís Batlle i Rossell 
On Tue, Aug 09, 2011 at 11:27:09AM -0400, Joshua Paine wrote:
> On 8/9/2011 11:19 AM, Matt Welland wrote:
> > Note: It is annoying to me that "fossil branch new foo" won't simply
> > branch from the current node.
> 
> +1
> 
> > By the way, how does "update" differ from "co" in your step 2 below?
> 
> If you have no edited files, they have the same effect. But if you have 
> some edits that are not yet committed, co will fail unless called with 
> --force, in which case it will overwrite, whereas update will merge your 
> uncommitted changes in to the new branch's files as uncommitted changes.

Moreover, 'co' is a much slower operation.

I think of 'update' as: bring my current working directory changes to the
check-in I say, considering what I have checked out.

And 'checkout' as: regardless of what I have in my working directory, bring
there the files for the named check-in.
___
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] Why do people create branches as a separate step? Was: Unable to sign manifest

2011-08-09 Thread Lluís Batlle i Rossell 
On Tue, Aug 09, 2011 at 10:58:02AM -0400, Richard Hipp wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 9, 2011 at 10:28 AM, tpero...@compumation.com <
> tpero...@compumation.com> wrote:
> (1)  fossil branch new new-branch

I forgot to add that I don't like this approach *also* because it does not let
me type teh message that will appear in the timeline. So even I wanted to
declare some intentions for the time record, I would not use this because I
can't type what will appear there.

But of course, having "-b", even having the writing feature I would not use it.
___
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] Why do people create branches as a separate step? Was: Unable to sign manifest

2011-08-09 Thread Brian Cottingham 
I agree with the others, I usually start a branch as a part of the process
of working on some new feature. It just feels more organized than
remembering to decide what branch to use when I finally commit, or changing
the branch after the fact.


2011/8/9 Lluís Batlle i Rossell 

> On Tue, Aug 09, 2011 at 10:58:02AM -0400, Richard Hipp wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 9, 2011 at 10:28 AM, tpero...@compumation.com <
> > tpero...@compumation.com> wrote:
> > (1)  fossil branch new new-branch
>
> I forgot to add that I don't like this approach *also* because it does not
> let
> me type teh message that will appear in the timeline. So even I wanted to
> declare some intentions for the time record, I would not use this because I
> can't type what will appear there.
>
> But of course, having "-b", even having the writing feature I would not use
> it.
> ___
> 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] Why do people create branches as a separate step? Was: Unable to sign manifest

2011-08-09 Thread Ron Wilson 
On Tue, Aug 9, 2011 at 10:58 AM, Richard Hipp  wrote:
> The way I've *always* done things is:
>
>     (1)  ... edit files
>     (2)  fossil commit -branch new-branch
>
> But I see many people want to do a 4-step process:
>
>     (1)  fossil branch new new-branch
>     (2)  fossil update new-branch
>     (3)  ... edit files
>     (4)  fossil commit
>
> That seems like so much more trouble.  What am I missing?  Is it that people
> are unaware that they can make edits that are destined to go into a branch
> before that branch actually exists?  Do I need to improve on the
> documentation?  Or does creating the branch first, before making file edits,
> just fit most peoples mental model better?  Are there some advantages to
> creating branches in advance that I am missing?

Besides how older VCSs have worked, many work places have a policy of
doing work on branches, then merging the changes, later. By creating
the branch first, there is no ambiguity of where new commits will go.
___
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] Why do people create branches as a separate step? Was: Unable to sign manifest

2011-08-09 Thread Matt Welland 
On Tue, Aug 9, 2011 at 9:25 AM, Ron Wilson  wrote:

> On Tue, Aug 9, 2011 at 10:58 AM, Richard Hipp  wrote:
> > The way I've *always* done things is:
> >
> > (1)  ... edit files
> > (2)  fossil commit -branch new-branch
> >
> > But I see many people want to do a 4-step process:
> >
> > (1)  fossil branch new new-branch
> > (2)  fossil update new-branch
> > (3)  ... edit files
> > (4)  fossil commit
> >
> > That seems like so much more trouble.  What am I missing?  Is it that
> people
> > are unaware that they can make edits that are destined to go into a
> branch
> > before that branch actually exists?  Do I need to improve on the
> > documentation?  Or does creating the branch first, before making file
> edits,
> > just fit most peoples mental model better?  Are there some advantages to
> > creating branches in advance that I am missing?
>
> Besides how older VCSs have worked, many work places have a policy of
> doing work on branches, then merging the changes, later. By creating
> the branch first, there is no ambiguity of where new commits will go.
>

This is a good point. For development at work we are setting up git to allow
creating branches and limit who can check in on those branches (using
gitolite). Pre-creating branches is a hard requirement.

**soapbox mode - feel free to stop reading :) **

The list of things that chip away at making a case for using fossil in
serious work (lots of geographically distributed developers with minimal
communication channels and a complex project that contains many disparate
components) is not long, but does seem unnecessarily limiting:

1. ignores stored in db, no hierarchy, not revision controlled, propagated
with sync?
- minor but really annoying
2. symlinks not able to be stored (Windows support policy issue)
   - can route around this one
3. no hooks (Windows support policy issue)
   - deal breaker
4. mindshare (changing for the better every day but impacted by the above 3)

anything else?

Training time and ramp up on fossil is 100x faster than git and the
ticketing, wiki and web is absolutely fantastic but ignore files, symlinks
and hooks are basic features available in almost(1) *every* competing scm
and IMHO crippling fossil because of limitations of Microsoft Windows seems
unnecessary to me.

(1) Symlinks are the arguable exception here but on windows creating a file
with the link contents seems a fair fallback.

Just a random and unsolicited $0.02 precipitated by the incredible pain of
having to train myself and others on git. Something I'm not even 100%
certain I can successfully do for our team :-)

___
> 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] Why do people create branches as a separate step? Was: Unable to sign manifest

2011-08-09 Thread Ben Summers 

On 9 Aug 2011, at 18:15, Matt Welland wrote:
> 
> **soapbox mode - feel free to stop reading :) **
> 
> The list of things that chip away at making a case for using fossil in 
> serious work (lots of geographically distributed developers with minimal 
> communication channels and a complex project that contains many disparate 
> components) is not long, but does seem unnecessarily limiting:
> 
> 1. ignores stored in db, no hierarchy, not revision controlled, propagated 
> with sync?
> - minor but really annoying

I had huge problems with settings like ignore-glob, so I have a branch which 
implements "versionable" settings which are just versioned files in a 
.fossil-settings directory.

I've been using it for a couple of months. Build the ben-testing branch if 
you'd like a play. Type "fossil help settings" for instructions. Testing and 
feedback appreciated!

I'm hoping I can get the ben-testing branch merged at some point. It has a few 
more useful (to me) changes: SSL client certs, empty-dirs setting, list changes 
& extras relative to the current working directory.

Ben


--
http://bens.me.uk/



___
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] Why do people create branches as a separate step? Was: Unable to sign manifest

2011-08-09 Thread Mike Meyer 
On Tue, Aug 9, 2011 at 8:35 AM, Konstantin Khomoutov <
flatw...@users.sourceforge.net> wrote:

> On Tue, 9 Aug 2011 08:19:46 -0700
> Matt Welland  wrote:
>
> > I often am planning a change or thinking ahead and will create the
> > branch to record my intentions before I've started coding. I do like
> > the ability to checkin changes to a branch but would generally not
> > intentionally use it out of the risk of forgetting that my changes
> > are intended for a branch and then checking them in to the current
> > branch.
> I'd like to second all written above.
> This is simply a mental model thing: "oh, these changes I've just made
> should better be on the new branch" versus "now I want to implement a
> new feature, so let's fork a new branch now and start coding *on it*".
> Both are valid on different occasions.


Does any other VCS have a "commit to " ability? I know some will let
you create a branch and update to it while preserving changes, but that kind
of thing always feels like an "oops, I made the changes to the wrong source"
type of thing than something planned.

  > > Note: It is annoying to me that "fossil branch new foo" won't simply

> > branch from the current node.
> Absolutely agreed.
> I miss Git's `git checkout -b newbranch` encantation which stands for
> fossil branch new newbranch
> fossil update newbranch
> in fossil, which is barely a pleasure to use.
>
> By the way, could it be possible to implement such "I want to start a
> new branch now" without recording of any new artifacts but instead by
> just creating some record (in _FOSSIL_, presumably), that the user
> recorded her intention for the next commit she'll make to start a new
> branch?  That would be more in a fossil's style of managing branches, I
> feel.


This is they way mercurial does things. Creating a branch is a local change,
and only happens on the repository when you commit those. I'd like it as
well - some way of noting that the work in the current checkout is destined
for some branch other than the one it's checked out of before I start the
work.

 ___
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] Why do people create branches as a separate step? Was: Unable to sign manifest

2011-08-09 Thread tpero...@compumation.com 
Because the Chapter 4.4 in the Fossil Version Control / Users Guide Version 1.7 
by Jim Schimpf does it that way.

From: fossil-users-boun...@lists.fossil-scm.org 
[mailto:fossil-users-boun...@lists.fossil-scm.org] On Behalf Of Richard Hipp
Sent: Tuesday, August 09, 2011 9:58 AM
To: fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org
Subject: [fossil-users] Why do people create branches as a separate step? Was: 
Unable to sign manifest

On Tue, Aug 9, 2011 at 10:28 AM, 
tpero...@compumation.com 
mailto:tpero...@compumation.com>> wrote:

fossil branch new Test 5947928ba



Change the subject:  Please help me to understand why people want to create a 
new branch before adding changes to that branch, rather than just waiting until 
they check-in their edits?  I'm not being sarcastic or critical here.  A lot of 
people do this and I sincerely want to understand the motivation.

The way I've *always* done things is:

(1)  ... edit files
(2)  fossil commit -branch new-branch

But I see many people want to do a 4-step process:

(1)  fossil branch new new-branch
(2)  fossil update new-branch
(3)  ... edit files
(4)  fossil commit

That seems like so much more trouble.  What am I missing?  Is it that people 
are unaware that they can make edits that are destined to go into a branch 
before that branch actually exists?  Do I need to improve on the documentation? 
 Or does creating the branch first, before making file edits, just fit most 
peoples mental model better?  Are there some advantages to creating branches in 
advance that I am missing?

Part of the motivation for this question is that, because I never use "fossil 
branch new" myself, there tend to be more bugs in that command than in the 
other commands that I use daily.  If there is a good reason to do "fossil 
branch new" then maybe I'll start using it myself and those bugs will get fixed 
sooner.  Or if not, maybe I'll deprecate "fossil branch new" - or at least 
print a warning and ask for confirmation: "Creating branches ahead of check-ins 
is unnecessary.  Are you sure you want to do this? (y/N)"

Please explain.  Thanks!

--
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] Why do people create branches as a separate step? Was: Unable to sign manifest

2011-08-09 Thread tpero...@compumation.com 
So, how do you move commits in the trunk to a new branch after the fact.

Thanks,
Tony Perovic

-Original Message-
From: fossil-users-boun...@lists.fossil-scm.org 
[mailto:fossil-users-boun...@lists.fossil-scm.org] On Behalf Of Joshua Paine
Sent: Tuesday, August 09, 2011 10:10 AM
To: fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org
Subject: Re: [fossil-users] Why do people create branches as a separate step? 
Was: Unable to sign manifest

On 8/9/2011 10:58 AM, Richard Hipp wrote:
> Change the subject:  Please help me to understand why people want to 
> create a new branch before adding changes to that branch, rather than 
> just waiting until they check-in their edits?

In SVN (and possibly others), you have to create the branch first. In Git I 
still try to make the branch first, because I don't know how to move a commit 
to a new branch if I forget to add the new branch argument when I commit. The 
GUI tools I've used for SVN and Git didn't make it easy to put a commit on a 
new branch.

In fossil I often just work and worry about branches later, sometimes several 
commits later, because I know it's really easy to change it. In those cases, 
I've usually started working on something and realized part way in that I had 
better branch for this--a totally stress-free realization with fossil. But 
sometimes I still make the branch first, because sometimes my thought process 
begins with "Now I'm going to start on New Feature X," and since I've just 
decided that, I may as well make some manifestation of my intention.

I like that both ways are supported, along with the ability to make new 
branches after the fact.

--
Joshua Paine
LetterBlock: Web Applications Built With Joy http://letterblock.com/
301-576-1920
___
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] Why do people create branches as a separate step? Was: Unable to sign manifest

2011-08-09 Thread Lluís Batlle i Rossell 
On Tue, Aug 09, 2011 at 01:01:55PM -0500, tpero...@compumation.com wrote:
> So, how do you move commits in the trunk to a new branch after the fact.

Open the UI, click the checkin, then edit... and check the part about "starts a 
new
branch".

Regards,
Lluís.

> -Original Message-
> From: fossil-users-boun...@lists.fossil-scm.org 
> [mailto:fossil-users-boun...@lists.fossil-scm.org] On Behalf Of Joshua Paine
> Sent: Tuesday, August 09, 2011 10:10 AM
> To: fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org
> Subject: Re: [fossil-users] Why do people create branches as a separate step? 
> Was: Unable to sign manifest
> 
> On 8/9/2011 10:58 AM, Richard Hipp wrote:
> > Change the subject:  Please help me to understand why people want to 
> > create a new branch before adding changes to that branch, rather than 
> > just waiting until they check-in their edits?
> 
> In SVN (and possibly others), you have to create the branch first. In Git I 
> still try to make the branch first, because I don't know how to move a commit 
> to a new branch if I forget to add the new branch argument when I commit. The 
> GUI tools I've used for SVN and Git didn't make it easy to put a commit on a 
> new branch.
> 
> In fossil I often just work and worry about branches later, sometimes several 
> commits later, because I know it's really easy to change it. In those cases, 
> I've usually started working on something and realized part way in that I had 
> better branch for this--a totally stress-free realization with fossil. But 
> sometimes I still make the branch first, because sometimes my thought process 
> begins with "Now I'm going to start on New Feature X," and since I've just 
> decided that, I may as well make some manifestation of my intention.
> 
> I like that both ways are supported, along with the ability to make new 
> branches after the fact.
> 
> --
> Joshua Paine
> LetterBlock: Web Applications Built With Joy http://letterblock.com/
> 301-576-1920
> ___
> 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] Why do people create branches as a separate step? Was: Unable to sign manifest

2011-08-09 Thread Brian Cottingham 
Is there a way to do in from the command line?


2011/8/9 Lluís Batlle i Rossell 

> On Tue, Aug 09, 2011 at 01:01:55PM -0500, tpero...@compumation.com wrote:
> > So, how do you move commits in the trunk to a new branch after the fact.
>
> Open the UI, click the checkin, then edit... and check the part about
> "starts a new
> branch".
>
> Regards,
> Lluís.
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: fossil-users-boun...@lists.fossil-scm.org [mailto:
> fossil-users-boun...@lists.fossil-scm.org] On Behalf Of Joshua Paine
> > Sent: Tuesday, August 09, 2011 10:10 AM
> > To: fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org
> > Subject: Re: [fossil-users] Why do people create branches as a separate
> step? Was: Unable to sign manifest
> >
> > On 8/9/2011 10:58 AM, Richard Hipp wrote:
> > > Change the subject:  Please help me to understand why people want to
> > > create a new branch before adding changes to that branch, rather than
> > > just waiting until they check-in their edits?
> >
> > In SVN (and possibly others), you have to create the branch first. In Git
> I still try to make the branch first, because I don't know how to move a
> commit to a new branch if I forget to add the new branch argument when I
> commit. The GUI tools I've used for SVN and Git didn't make it easy to put a
> commit on a new branch.
> >
> > In fossil I often just work and worry about branches later, sometimes
> several commits later, because I know it's really easy to change it. In
> those cases, I've usually started working on something and realized part way
> in that I had better branch for this--a totally stress-free realization with
> fossil. But sometimes I still make the branch first, because sometimes my
> thought process begins with "Now I'm going to start on New Feature X," and
> since I've just decided that, I may as well make some manifestation of my
> intention.
> >
> > I like that both ways are supported, along with the ability to make new
> branches after the fact.
> >
> > --
> > Joshua Paine
> > LetterBlock: Web Applications Built With Joy http://letterblock.com/
> > 301-576-1920
> > ___
> > 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
>
___
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] Why do people create branches as a separate step? Was: Unable to sign manifest

2011-08-09 Thread Lluís Batlle i Rossell 
On Tue, Aug 09, 2011 at 02:04:36PM -0400, Brian Cottingham wrote:
> Is there a way to do in from the command line?

There is not much of any commit editing in the command line, for what I know.

But at commit time you have '-b'. So using the ui for those corner cases is not
a big trouble for me at least.

> 2011/8/9 Lluís Batlle i Rossell 
> 
> > On Tue, Aug 09, 2011 at 01:01:55PM -0500, tpero...@compumation.com wrote:
> > > So, how do you move commits in the trunk to a new branch after the fact.
> >
> > Open the UI, click the checkin, then edit... and check the part about
> > "starts a new
> > branch".
> >
> > Regards,
> > Lluís.
> >
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: fossil-users-boun...@lists.fossil-scm.org [mailto:
> > fossil-users-boun...@lists.fossil-scm.org] On Behalf Of Joshua Paine
> > > Sent: Tuesday, August 09, 2011 10:10 AM
> > > To: fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org
> > > Subject: Re: [fossil-users] Why do people create branches as a separate
> > step? Was: Unable to sign manifest
> > >
> > > On 8/9/2011 10:58 AM, Richard Hipp wrote:
> > > > Change the subject:  Please help me to understand why people want to
> > > > create a new branch before adding changes to that branch, rather than
> > > > just waiting until they check-in their edits?
> > >
> > > In SVN (and possibly others), you have to create the branch first. In Git
> > I still try to make the branch first, because I don't know how to move a
> > commit to a new branch if I forget to add the new branch argument when I
> > commit. The GUI tools I've used for SVN and Git didn't make it easy to put a
> > commit on a new branch.
> > >
> > > In fossil I often just work and worry about branches later, sometimes
> > several commits later, because I know it's really easy to change it. In
> > those cases, I've usually started working on something and realized part way
> > in that I had better branch for this--a totally stress-free realization with
> > fossil. But sometimes I still make the branch first, because sometimes my
> > thought process begins with "Now I'm going to start on New Feature X," and
> > since I've just decided that, I may as well make some manifestation of my
> > intention.
> > >
> > > I like that both ways are supported, along with the ability to make new
> > branches after the fact.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Joshua Paine
> > > LetterBlock: Web Applications Built With Joy http://letterblock.com/
> > > 301-576-1920
> > > ___
> > > 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
> >

> ___
> 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] Why do people create branches as a separate step? Was: Unable to sign manifest

2011-08-09 Thread Gé Weijers 



On Tue, 9 Aug 2011, Richard Hipp wrote:


Change the subject:  Please help me to understand why people want to create a 
new branch before adding
changes to that branch, rather than just waiting until they check-in their 
edits?  I'm not being
sarcastic or critical here.  A lot of people do this and I sincerely want to 
understand the motivation. 


If you create the branch first you cannot forget later and commit to the 
wrong branch. It avoids operator error later on. If you need to edit a 
file and save your changes to a copy you may do the same:


- open the file
- use the 'save as' command to change the name
- edit for 30 minutes
- use the 'save' command.

If you could just tell fossil that you intend to commit to a new branch 
from the current workspace/checkout creating that extra commit object 
could be avoided without risking a commit to the wrong branch.


$ fossil open ~/repos/mrcoffee.fossil
$ fossil branch next espresso-feature
 much later 
$ fossil commit
Commit to new branch 'espresso-feature'? (y/N)

Gé___
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] Why do people create branches as a separate step? Was: Unable to sign manifest

2011-08-09 Thread Lluís Batlle i Rossell 
On Tue, Aug 09, 2011 at 11:33:19AM -0700, Gé Weijers wrote:
> 
> 
> On Tue, 9 Aug 2011, Richard Hipp wrote:
> 
> >Change the subject:  Please help me to understand why people want to create 
> >a new branch before adding
> >changes to that branch, rather than just waiting until they check-in their 
> >edits?  I'm not being
> >sarcastic or critical here.  A lot of people do this and I sincerely want to 
> >understand the motivation. 
> 
> If you create the branch first you cannot forget later and commit to
> the wrong branch. It avoids operator error later on. If you need to
> edit a file and save your changes to a copy you may do the same:
> 
> - open the file
> - use the 'save as' command to change the name
> - edit for 30 minutes
> - use the 'save' command.
> 
> If you could just tell fossil that you intend to commit to a new
> branch from the current workspace/checkout creating that extra
> commit object could be avoided without risking a commit to the wrong
> branch.

You can *later* change the branch, after commit, as we have talked in this
thread. And it's not about overwriting files, like your file save example.
___
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] Why do people create branches as a separate step? Was: Unable to sign manifest

2011-08-09 Thread Richard Hipp 
On Tue, Aug 9, 2011 at 2:33 PM, Gé Weijers  wrote:

>
>  If you create the branch first you cannot forget later and commit to the
> wrong branch.


I beg to differ!  Just this past Friday, I did three separate commits to
SQLite that went into the wrong branch even though the correct branch
already existed.  If you look at
http://www.sqlite.org/src/timeline?r=query-planner-tweaks the three
check-ins eb43422827, e93c248c84, and 7e914aa999 were mistakenly made to
"trunk" instead of to the "query-planner-tweaks" branch.  I didn't notice
the error until I looked at the timeline.  To fix the problem, I had to move
the three check-ins over to a fork of the query-planner-tweaks branch then
merge the two forks, resulting in the funky graph that you see.

The query-planner-tweaks branch already existed when I make my three
mistakes.  But I still managed to commit to the wrong branch.  So, clearly,
just having the correct branch available does not mean you will commit to
it.

> $ fossil branch next espresso-feature

That's an interesting feature request.  I'll take it under consideration...

-- 
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] Why do people create branches as a separate step? Was: Unable to sign manifest

2011-08-09 Thread Gé Weijers 



On Tue, 9 Aug 2011, Lluís Batlle i Rossell wrote:


If you could just tell fossil that you intend to commit to a new
branch from the current workspace/checkout creating that extra
commit object could be avoided without risking a commit to the wrong
branch.


You can *later* change the branch, after commit, as we have talked in this
thread. And it's not about overwriting files, like your file save example.


True, but if your commit is to the wrong branch you're now in a race with 
other people. If someone performs an 'update' before you change the branch 
name using the GUI and push the change to the main repository your bad 
commit propagates. If you do that to, say, the fossil 'trunk' branch for 
instance someone somewhere is going to end up with your half-finished 
feature in their production build.


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

[fossil-users] Bug: errant operations don't cause exit(EXIT_FAILURE).

2011-08-09 Thread Martin S. Weber 
I stumbled over this while I had a network outage...

$ until fossil configuration pull all && fossil sync ; do echo; echo; date; 
echo; echo; sleep 5 ; done

 Bytes  Cards  Artifacts Deltas
Sent:  58  1  0  0
fossil: cannot connect to host server:port
Total network traffic: 0 bytes sent, 0 bytes received
Server:http://user@server:port/repo
 Bytes  Cards  Artifacts Deltas
Sent:3545 75  0  0
fossil: cannot connect to host server:port
Total network traffic: 0 bytes sent, 0 bytes received

Or in other words:

$ fossil sync
Server:http://user@server:port/repo
 Bytes  Cards  Artifacts Deltas
Sent:3545 75  0  0
waiting for server...fossil: cannot connect to host server:port
Total network traffic: 0 bytes sent, 0 bytes received
$ echo $?
0

Imho it should have exit status != 0 in the case where the network 
communication failed due to an error.

$ fossil version
This is fossil version 1.18 [df9da91ba8] 2011-07-13 23:03:41 UTC


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] Why do people create branches as a separate step? Was: Unable to sign manifest

2011-08-09 Thread Gé Weijers 



On Tue, 9 Aug 2011, Richard Hipp wrote:


On Tue, Aug 9, 2011 at 2:33 PM, Gé Weijers  wrote:

If you create the branch first you cannot forget later and commit to the wrong 
branch.



I beg to differ!  Just this past Friday, I did three separate commits to SQLite 
that went into the wrong
branch even though the correct branch already existed.  [...]


In fossil (and in most other SCMs) you certainly can. It would be 
different if the simplest way of creating a branch and moving your 
workspace over would be a single action. In git for instance branch 
creation can be done by


$ git checkout -b  -m

which creates the branch (locally) and moves any uncommitted changes over 
in one go. Because git does not need to create a commit object to create a 
branch the end result is similar to using


$ fossil commit --branch 

i.e. you do not end up with a commit that is essentially a copy of another 
one.


BTW: the 'fossil branch next' idea is not original in retrospect. 
Mercurial's 'hg branch' command works this way. It requires that the 
branch does not yet exist, and the new branch is created upon commit.


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

[fossil-users] X-Frame-Options http header

2011-08-09 Thread Martin S. Weber 
So I wanted to use javadoc/scaladoc style documentation and take advantage of 
fossils embedded documentation -- I put the scaladoc under /docco and 
happily was going to http://server:port/repo/doc/trunk/docco/index.html - but 
there noscript was already waiting for me, saying "No, no!". I couldn't 
convince it otherwise, so I turned the X-Frame-Options http header over to 
SAMEORIGIN instead of DENY and recompiled.

Now, with wikis and such I can see how there's a danger of IFRAMEs, click 
jacking and what not. On the other hand, there's a valid use-case for using 
iframes, where x-frame-options really should be SAMEORIGIN. Couldn't there be 
a setting to tune, or a list of glob patterns for which to turn 
X-Frame-Options to SAMEORIGIN (or, the other way round, to DENY) ?

(yeah yeah I know - obvious answer is stop using scaladoc or javadoc, they're 
bad tools anyways. But it's all I have here :)).

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] Why do people create branches as a separate step? Was: Unable to sign manifest

2011-08-09 Thread altufaltu 
It is more like a logical process. You want to work on something, create a 
branch, work on it and commit. If you have to create a branch when committing, 
you will have to remember if this is first commit in that branch or subsequent. 
You commandline will also be different for first commit that creates the branch 
- not good for scripting or for 3rd party GUIs - IDEs?

- altu

> - Original Message -
> From: Richard Hipp
> Sent: 08/09/11 08:28 PM
> To: fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org
> Subject: [fossil-users] Why do people create branches as a separate step? 
> Was: Unable to sign manifest
> 
> On Tue, Aug 9, 2011 at 10:28 AM, tpero...@compumation.com <
> tpero...@compumation.com> wrote:
> 
> >
> >
> > fossil branch new Test 5947928ba
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> Change the subject:  Please help me to understand why people want to create
> a new branch before adding changes to that branch, rather than just waiting
> until they check-in their edits?  I'm not being sarcastic or critical here.
> A lot of people do this and I sincerely want to understand the motivation.
> 
> The way I've *always* done things is:
> 
> (1)  ... edit files
> (2)  fossil commit -branch new-branch
> 
> But I see many people want to do a 4-step process:
> 
> (1)  fossil branch new new-branch
> (2)  fossil update new-branch
> (3)  ... edit files
> (4)  fossil commit
> 
> That seems like so much more trouble.  What am I missing?  Is it that people
> are unaware that they can make edits that are destined to go into a branch
> before that branch actually exists?  Do I need to improve on the
> documentation?  Or does creating the branch first, before making file edits,
> just fit most peoples mental model better?  Are there some advantages to
> creating branches in advance that I am missing?
> 
> Part of the motivation for this question is that, because I never use
> "fossil branch new" myself, there tend to be more bugs in that command than
> in the other commands that I use daily.  If there is a good reason to do
> "fossil branch new" then maybe I'll start using it myself and those bugs
> will get fixed sooner.  Or if not, maybe I'll deprecate "fossil branch new"
> - or at least print a warning and ask for confirmation: "Creating branches
> ahead of check-ins is unnecessary.  Are you sure you want to do this? (y/N)"
> 
> Please explain.  Thanks!
> 
> -- 
> 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] [d8221b9863] Remove deleted file from repo?

2011-08-09 Thread Gilles 
Hello

I delete a file with Windows Explorer that was part of the repository
and had been checked out.

Now, when I run "fossil commit", I get the following error message:

=
D:\>fossil commit
C:\fossil.exe: missing file: a8711407.txt
C:\fossil.exe: aborting due to prior errors
=

I tried using "rm" and then "delete", to no avail.

What is the correct way to remove a file from the repository, so that
Fossil totally forgets about it like the file was never added to the
repo?

More generally, I guess that means that, prior to removing a file from
disk, I should first commit it to the repo?

Thank you.

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