Re: [fossil-users] SharpFossil/WinFossil
Am 10.05.2011 02:24, schrieb Jeff Slutter: On 5/9/2011 8:15 PM, Matt Welland wrote: Rather than changing the terminal user interface (it will be slightly less nice IMHO due to the extra newline on a prompt) I suggest considering the approach used on the monotone project. A separate interface for automation. Make the human friendly interface friendly to humans and make the automation interface friendly to automation. I agree, you don't want to mess up the text for the normal command line user. I suggest doing something similar to Perforce with it's tagged text output (-z tag) ripe for parsing, or, just testing to see if adding fflush(stdout); fflush(stderr); instead of adding tacking on a newline. This will hopefully cause the parent process to receive the child output. Unfortunately fflush(stdout) doesn't help. It is part of the prompt_user function since day one. For now, I think I'll do it with my small change. It works and has near to no impact on the fossil code base. The prompt_user function doesn't look like it will be changed in the future. An additional flag for parsing friendly output would require changes in a number of commands and IMHO is not an option until there are more projects which require this. Ingo ___ 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] SharpFossil/WinFossil
Ingo, This seems like a reasonable change to Fossil as long as adding it doesn't break anything we don't understand (I can't believe it would). No, it won't break anything. The only difference is that on the commandline the users answer has to be entered on a new line and not on the same line as the prompt. Propose it as a change and get Richard Hipp's feedback. Maybe you should try to become a Fossil contributor and make the change yourself so there doesn't have to be a custom Fossil build. I've already added a ticket as a feature request a while ago. I won't conjecture about the reasons not to include this change. After all it is Richard's project. I'll try to always include a modified Windows binary release of the latest official Fossil release version into my project. Anyone who doesn't trust this exe might compile it himself. ;-) As I mentioned, SharpFossil and WinFossil are far away from beeing complete or bug free. And as long as there is one user (me ;-) ) it doesn't make sense to beg Richard again and again to change anything in Fossil to support SharpFossil. The main purpose of my original post to the list was to encourage Windows users of Fossil to try SharpFossil/WinFossil and to get feedback about it and may be to get people involved in further development (for me, it is a spare time project and unfortunately not evolving fast enough) . Ingo ___ 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] SharpFossil/WinFossil
Rather than changing the terminal user interface (it will be slightly less nice IMHO due to the extra newline on a prompt) I suggest considering the approach used on the monotone project. A separate interface for automation. Make the human friendly interface friendly to humans and make the automation interface friendly to automation. Just my 0.02$ On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 3:26 PM, Ingo Koch fos...@ikoch.de wrote: Ingo, This seems like a reasonable change to Fossil as long as adding it doesn't break anything we don't understand (I can't believe it would). No, it won't break anything. The only difference is that on the commandline the users answer has to be entered on a new line and not on the same line as the prompt. Propose it as a change and get Richard Hipp's feedback. Maybe you should try to become a Fossil contributor and make the change yourself so there doesn't have to be a custom Fossil build. I've already added a ticket as a feature request a while ago. I won't conjecture about the reasons not to include this change. After all it is Richard's project. I'll try to always include a modified Windows binary release of the latest official Fossil release version into my project. Anyone who doesn't trust this exe might compile it himself. ;-) As I mentioned, SharpFossil and WinFossil are far away from beeing complete or bug free. And as long as there is one user (me ;-) ) it doesn't make sense to beg Richard again and again to change anything in Fossil to support SharpFossil. The main purpose of my original post to the list was to encourage Windows users of Fossil to try SharpFossil/WinFossil and to get feedback about it and may be to get people involved in further development (for me, it is a spare time project and unfortunately not evolving fast enough) . Ingo ___ 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] SharpFossil/WinFossil
For details and download see http://repository.mobile-developers.de/cgi-bin/ikoch/sharpfossil Please clone and play with it. Any response is welcome. Great stuff, I'm definitely interested in something like this, I'll have to take a look. Two things: 1) I was unable to run the WinFossil binary you made available for download (Win7, x64). However, I also realized I wasn't able to run the fossil.exe you provided also because it is dependent on zlib1.dll, which I do not have on my system. Static link perhaps? I've included the zlib1.dll into the WinFossil.zip file. What do you mean by I was unable to run the WinFossil binary? I'm developing and using it on Win7 x64. Do you get any error message, exception or something like that? 2) This is to the Fossil community, would it be possible to get into the main branch of Fossil the minor change necessary for this project? That is, placing a CR/LF at the end of request printfs so that processes that spawn Fossil.exe programmatically can process over the stdout/stdin. Perhaps some command line argument to enable this? I already suggested the modification in a feature request some time ago: http://www.fossil-scm.org/index.html/tktview?name=2857ab0995 Regards, Ingo ___ 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] SharpFossil/WinFossil
I like this and will try to support or help if possible. Both are good ideas, a Windows explorer extension would be a natural extension of this. CR/LF - very windows specific LF - is very common on other platforms (*nix) CR - Mac specific I think Without checking is it possible that you are receiving just the LF which you should be able to parse on with stdout output. If there is no CR/LF,LF, or CR then I think one of these would be considered a reasonable enhancement to Fossil. It just may that the right choice isn't CR/LF. Tim When I am back home at my computer I will give the windows app a try. Date: Sat, 07 May 2011 23:07:56 +0200 From: Ingo Koch fos...@ikoch.de Subject: [fossil-users] SharpFossil/WinFossil To: fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org Message-ID: 4dc5b4ac.6000...@ikoch.de Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15 Hi all, for all those who are missing a Visual Studio integration of fossil, I started a project to provide a C# wrapper around the fossil command line. The long term goal is to provide a SccProvider for VS. As a prove of concept for the lib I've also added a Windows application which uses SharpFossil to provide a graphical interface for the fossil comands. Neither SharpFossil (the wrapper library) nor WinFossil (the Windows UI for fossil) are complete, but they already have some features which might be useful. If you want to try it, please be aware of the fact that you need a slightly modified version of fossil (reasons for this on the website mentioned below) which is included into the repository and the distribution zip file. I'd like to invite anyone who is interested in Windows/Visual Studio integration to participate. Take a look and test it with your environment, submit bug reports ore feature requests, be part of the development team (to be build ;-) ) ... For details and download see http://repository.mobile-developers.de/cgi-bin/ikoch/sharpfossil Please clone and play with it. Any response is welcome. ___ 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] SharpFossil/WinFossil
Am 08.05.2011 16:54, schrieb Jeff Slutter: I've included the zlib1.dll into the WinFossil.zip file. What do you mean by I was unable to run the WinFossil binary? I'm developing and using it on Win7 x64. Do you get any error message, exception or something like that? The Fossil.exe included in WinFossil.zip now works for me. As for WinFossil.exe, as soon as I double click it, it crashes and I get a standard Windows message box saying WinFossil has stopped working. Windows is checking for a solution to the problem Running the executable via an instance of the MSVS2008 debugger reveals a BadImageFormatException: An unhandled exception of type 'System.BadImageFormatException' occurred in WinFossil.exe Additional information: Could not load file or assembly 'System.Data.SQLite, Version=1.0.66.0, Culture=neutral, PublicKeyToken=db937bc2d44ff139' or one of its dependencies. An attempt was made to load a program with an incorrect format. I'm confused though why it would work for you, and not me. Other than, perhaps, on your machine it is finding the x64 System.Data.SQLite behind the scenes, perhaps from the GAC. Seeing these errors in the past, and knowing that System.Data.SQLite is a native assembly (it is either x86, or x64), to fix the error, you need to explicitly set the Platform target: field to x86 (in the Properties|Build tab of WinFossil's Project Properties), and then make sure you distribute the System.Data.SQLite x86 assembly (as you already are). Optionally, you could provide both x86 and x64 assemblies of System.Data.SQLite and let the user choose the right one based on their platform. That's what happens if you test and use software on the development system :-( I got caught in that trap two years ago but I forgot it until you mentioned it. I've uploaded a modified version which has been tested on a 32 bit Windows XP VM too. Ingo ___ 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] SharpFossil/WinFossil
CR/LF - very windows specific LF - is very common on other platforms (*nix) CR - Mac specific I think Without checking is it possible that you are receiving just the LF which you should be able to parse on with stdout output. If there is no CR/LF,LF, or CR then I think one of these would be considered a reasonable enhancement to Fossil. It just may that the right choice isn't CR/LF. The modification I've made is to add a '\n' to the prompt. So it is sufficient to add a LF even on the Windows platform. Ingo ___ 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] SharpFossil/WinFossil
On 5/8/2011 5:43 PM, Ingo Koch wrote: CR/LF - very windows specific LF - is very common on other platforms (*nix) CR - Mac specific I think Without checking is it possible that you are receiving just the LF which you should be able to parse on with stdout output. If there is no CR/LF,LF, or CR then I think one of these would be considered a reasonable enhancement to Fossil. It just may that the right choice isn't CR/LF. The modification I've made is to add a '\n' to the prompt. So it is sufficient to add a LF even on the Windows platform. Right, as Ingo said, just the '\n' should be sufficient, no need to worry about CR/CRLF/LF platform specifics. The reason it is necessary, I believe (I could be wrong), for a parent process, Windows doesn't actually notify the parent process of the stdout data until a newline is hit. So, if you spawn a process and monitor the child's stdout/stderr streams, you don't get that data until a '\n' is sent by the child. Which is why Ingo needs this change in Fossil in order to write a wrapper around 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] SharpFossil/WinFossil
Actually, thinking about it, the '\n' probably just causes a flush. Therefore, the easier change may be just adding calls to fflush with stderr and stdout. ___ 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] SharpFossil/WinFossil
Jeff, shrug, been a long time since I've done anything with a Mac, LOL. Ingo, This seems like a reasonable change to Fossil as long as adding it doesn't break anything we don't understand (I can't believe it would). Propose it as a change and get Richard Hipp's feedback. Maybe you should try to become a Fossil contributor and make the change yourself so there doesn't have to be a custom Fossil build. Tim ___ 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] SharpFossil/WinFossil
For details and download see http://repository.mobile-developers.de/cgi-bin/ikoch/sharpfossil Please clone and play with it. Any response is welcome. Great stuff, I'm definitely interested in something like this, I'll have to take a look. Two things: 1) I was unable to run the WinFossil binary you made available for download (Win7, x64). However, I also realized I wasn't able to run the fossil.exe you provided also because it is dependent on zlib1.dll, which I do not have on my system. Static link perhaps? 2) This is to the Fossil community, would it be possible to get into the main branch of Fossil the minor change necessary for this project? That is, placing a CR/LF at the end of request printfs so that processes that spawn Fossil.exe programmatically can process over the stdout/stdin. Perhaps some command line argument to enable this? This reminds me of a neat feature Perforce has, and that is a command line option to enable a formatted output, so a parent process has an easier job to parse any output. Thank you, Jeff ___ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
