Re: [fossil-users] How about renaming a fork to fork-*? (Was: Two trunks?)
On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 9:50 PM, Andy Bradford amb-fos...@bradfords.org wrote: Also, it only warns if it encounters a fork that has not previously been seen Only for sync, or does it also only report new forks when fossil forks is run? In my opinion, fossil forks should report all forks, even previously detected ones. ___ 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 about renaming a fork to fork-*? (Was: Two trunks?)
Thus said Ron W on Thu, 23 Apr 2015 13:13:12 -0400: Only for sync, or does it also only report new forks when fossil forks is run? In my opinion, fossil forks should report all forks, even previously detected ones. Yes, only in the context of a sync. E.g. someone makes a commit, you are working offline and also make a commit against the same node in the timeline. This creates a ``sleeper'' fork. When you go back online and sync your content, you will receive a warning that a fork has occurred. It also suggests you use ``fossil forks'' to find it. However, because you now have the fork, you will not be notified again during a sync about it. Andy -- TAI64 timestamp: 400055392cdb ___ 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] Got this in WAL mode
Thus said Abilio Marques on Sat, 18 Apr 2015 21:29:36 -0430: $ fossil ci -m improving icon SQLITE_NOTICE: recovered 2 frames from WAL file C:\Documents and Settings\Public\Documents\Unity Projects\asteroids\.asteroids.fossil-wal ./scenes/mainScene.unity contains binary data. Use --no-warnings or the binary-glob setting to disable this warning. I've seen this warning before as well. Sometimes when I browse to one of my repositories. It seems like it's mostly informational in nature as I have never noticed any problems. Andy -- TAI64 timestamp: 40005539c295 ___ 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] Fossil server issue
I first understood that the restrictions were on the URL only, but yeah, it's imaginable that they will be applied to the path too. On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 6:34 AM, Richard Hipp d...@sqlite.org wrote: On 4/22/15, Abilio Marques abili...@gmail.com wrote: Hi, I keep the main storage for my repos in a directory called ~/.fossilrepos . I've been using for a few years now: fossil server ~/.fossilrepos (with nohup) And it works perfectly. Yet, today I was trying to use the --files option. I first made an experiment with something like: fossil server --files '*.txt' ~/tmp And it correctly served to me a file called hello.txt. Yet, when I try to browse to a txt file inside the real directory, using: fossil server --files '*.txt' ~/.fossilrepos I get a not found. So I made a quick test and renamed the directory to: fossilrepos (without the dot). Then restarted, and it serves the *.txt files just fine. It seems it doesn't like the dot in the repo directory. Is that normal behaviour? Yes. There are restrictions on the file and directories names used by the web-server. These restrictions are designed to enhance security, and prevent attacks that consist of sending unusual URIs into the web-server with the aim of unauthorized content. https://www.fossil-scm.org/fossil/artifact/41d452b2fa?ln=1508-1526 -- 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] Branch only timeline
Is there a way to restrict the timeline to a specific branch? fossil help timeline didn't show anything... ___ 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] Branch only timeline
+1 (wish list) I don't think there is as I had asked for the same quite some time ago. But, I guess an option like -b [branch] could be added eventually to do this. (Similar to how -p can be used to filter by given file/dir name.) Example: -b without an explicit branch name to show timeline only for current branch. -Original Message- From: Ron Aaron Sent: Thursday, April 23, 2015 10:01 AM To: Fossil SCM user's discussion Subject: [fossil-users] Branch only timeline Is there a way to restrict the timeline to a specific branch? fossil help timeline didn't show anything... ___ 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] Fossil server issue
On 4/22/15, Abilio Marques abili...@gmail.com wrote: Hi, I keep the main storage for my repos in a directory called ~/.fossilrepos . I've been using for a few years now: fossil server ~/.fossilrepos (with nohup) And it works perfectly. Yet, today I was trying to use the --files option. I first made an experiment with something like: fossil server --files '*.txt' ~/tmp And it correctly served to me a file called hello.txt. Yet, when I try to browse to a txt file inside the real directory, using: fossil server --files '*.txt' ~/.fossilrepos I get a not found. So I made a quick test and renamed the directory to: fossilrepos (without the dot). Then restarted, and it serves the *.txt files just fine. It seems it doesn't like the dot in the repo directory. Is that normal behaviour? Yes. There are restrictions on the file and directories names used by the web-server. These restrictions are designed to enhance security, and prevent attacks that consist of sending unusual URIs into the web-server with the aim of unauthorized content. https://www.fossil-scm.org/fossil/artifact/41d452b2fa?ln=1508-1526 -- 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] How about renaming a fork to fork-*? (Was: Two trunks?)
2015-04-23 3:50 GMT+02:00 Andy Bradford amb-fos...@bradfords.org: I've altered the change and now it will only check at the end of the complete sync. Also, it only warns if it encounters a fork that has not previously been seen (ignoring any additional checkins on a fork unless they also are new forks). I think this will minimize fork warning fatigue that is an outstanding concern. Good work, I like it! +1 for merging it to trunk. I don't think the problem is with ``fossil forks'' however, because after running ``fossil rebuild'' on z.fossil, ``fossil forks'' correctly reports that there are no forks. So it seems that for whatever reason, running ``fossil pull'' the way we are for the test results in not all nodes being properly designated in the tables. This behavior exists in trunk as well. $ ./fossil forks -R z.fossil (1) 2015-02-24 06:40:00 [8c3e6404b0] Let -x imply --emptydirs and --dotfiles (user: jan.nijtmans tags: cleanX-no-clean-glob) (2) 2013-06-21 09:27:19 [dfb47a2a2e] rebase (user: jan.nijtmans tags: cleanX-no-clean-glob) (3) 2013-06-19 07:14:13 [cbf9660369] rebase (user: jan.nijtmans tags: cleanX-no-clean-glob) (4) 2013-04-03 07:36:05 [6159a7f281] rebase (user: jan.nijtmans tags: clean-with-ignore) (5) 2013-04-02 09:31:26 [bdd9790484] merge trunk (user: jan.nijtmans tags: clean-with-ignore) Yes, this must be a bug somewhere in the pull handling, which is caused by the rebase action I did (as experiment). Have a look at this commit: http://fossil-scm.org/index.html/timeline?f=2e545d58 You will see that a new clean-with-ignore branch was created from trunk, the old content of clean-with-ignore being merged in. Even though effectively the branch didn't change, apparently the pull concluded that 2e545d58 is a leaf, while fossil rebuild correctly decides it isn't. Of course, I could explicitly add a close tag here as workaround, but for the sake of bug reproducibility I'll leave it like this ;-) Thanks! Good catch! Pleading guilty! However, as you correctly stated, this is unrelated to the recent fork handling improvements, so still good-to-go from me. Thanks! Jan Nijtmans ___ 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] Branch only timeline
On 4/23/15, Ron Aaron r...@ronware.org wrote: Is there a way to restrict the timeline to a specific branch? There is for the web timeline. Example: https://www.fossil-scm.org/fossil/timeline?t=sync-forkwarn Are you wanting something similar for the command-line timeline? fossil help timeline didn't show anything... ___ 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
