On Sun, 2010-01-24 at 18:29 -0500, D. Richard Hipp wrote:
> On Jan 24, 2010, at 5:42 PM, Paul Serice wrote:
> > Just search for "Berkeley DB usage leading to respository
> > corruption and data loss" on the Wikipedia page for Subversion.
>
> That's why subversion switched to SQLite, isn't it?
The
On Sunday, January 24, 2010, D. Richard Hipp wrote:
>
> On Jan 22, 2010, at 10:52 AM, Stephen De Gabrielle wrote:
>
>> Hi someone recently mentioned to me that they were uncomfortable with
>> their entire repository in a single file. I am happy with it, but why
>> would this be a problem?
>> -Larg
On Jan 24, 2010, at 5:42 PM, Paul Serice wrote:
> On Sun, 2010-01-24 at 15:35 -0500, D. Richard Hipp wrote:
>> Could this be a case of "we've never done it that way before"?
>
> I think it's more a case of "been there, done that, never want to do
> it again." Just search for "Berkeley DB usage l
On Sun, 2010-01-24 at 15:35 -0500, D. Richard Hipp wrote:
> Could this be a case of "we've never done it that way before"?
I think it's more a case of "been there, done that, never want to do
it again." Just search for "Berkeley DB usage leading to respository
corruption and data loss" on the Wik
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > I like the simplicity and compactness of fossil and it seems a
> > perfect fit for a project. I just set up a fossil remote repo. I
> > gave no rights at all to Anon and Nobody. I added user Friend and
> > added rights to clone, check-out, check-in, etc. If I run fossil
> > cl
Stephen De Gabrielle wrote:
> I took a look at subversion, and it seems to use a single db/filesystem FSFS?
>
> I'm guessing the same issues apply?
Hmmm ... at least if using the FSFS storage, a repository consists of a
lot of files. They can be backed up very comfortably as they are
immutable
On Jan 22, 2010, at 10:52 AM, Stephen De Gabrielle wrote:
> Hi someone recently mentioned to me that they were uncomfortable with
> their entire repository in a single file. I am happy with it, but why
> would this be a problem?
> -Large projects?
> -Big blobs in your source?
> -filesystem limits
I took a look at subversion, and it seems to use a single db/filesystem FSFS?
I'm guessing the same issues apply?
Cheers,
Stephen
On Friday, January 22, 2010, Stephen De Gabrielle
wrote:
> Hi someone recently mentioned to me that they were uncomfortable with
> their entire repository in a sin
So, I posted a bug in the tracker for this:
http://fossil-scm.org/index.html/info/fbcefb6e4ebd5b8e186f86c48adcbaace0e13a45
But I still run into this error for quite a lot of operations. I was
wondering if someone could explain the purpose of the feature where
fossil says:
fossil: not an ordinar
Quoting Stephen De Gabrielle :
> Agreed, it probably counts as the easiest issue/bug tracker to setup
> in the universe, despite the TCL-like embedded language.
>
I was thinking that it's TCL-like embedded language was what made it
usable and so configurable. It's simplicity is a plus, but it's
c
I'm not sure what was going wrong. But hopefully it is fixed now.
With either an old or a new client, you should be able to do this:
fossil pull http://anonym...@www.fossil-scm.org/
If an older client prompts you for a password, just enter an empty
password.
Please let me know if you en
Well, I also use fossil for file copy across my office laptop / home computer.
One is with domain login, other with no domain and many times windows copy just
doesn't work... may be because of firewall or some security app. But anyway,
fossil works better as optimized / compressed file copy and
Agreed, it probably counts as the easiest issue/bug tracker to setup
in the universe, despite the TCL-like embedded language.
Stephen
On Sunday, January 24, 2010, Ron Aaron wrote:
> Fossil isn't only good for source-control!
>
> I just set it up as a server on my local machine (running off inetd
On Jan 24, 2010, at 7:15 AM, Adam Schmideg wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I like the simplicity and compactness of fossil and it seems a
> perfect fit for a project. I just set up a fossil remote repo. I
> gave no rights at all to Anon and Nobody. I added user Friend and
> added rights to clone, check
Hi,
I like the simplicity and compactness of fossil and it seems a perfect fit
for a project. I just set up a fossil remote repo. I gave no rights at all
to Anon and Nobody. I added user Friend and added rights to clone,
check-out, check-in, etc. If I run fossil clone http://friend:passw...@..
Fossil isn't only good for source-control!
I just set it up as a server on my local machine (running off inetd, but you
could also just run it with 'fossil server').
Added a shortcut in Firefox to point to http://localhost:3/ (where I have
the server running) and voila! a perfect note-takin
The fossil version I'm using is right at the top: *This is fossil version
[a3c97c9063] 2010-01-21 20:53:59 UTC* That was the fossil version available
from the download page.
As to passwords, etc., I've long ago forgotten my password at
fossil-scm.organd never got a response for a password reset s
On Jan 24, 2010, at 2:11 AM, Michael Richter wrote:
> OK, maybe I'm being as thick as a whale sandwich, but when I try to
> update my copy of fossil from fossil-scm.org, after downloading a
> source tarball and compiling, I get the same login problem I had
> with my earlier version:
>
> mic
18 matches
Mail list logo
