Hi,
May fossil push via ssh?
--
Ruslan Popov
phone: +7 916 926 1205
___
fossil-users mailing list
fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org
http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
Sergey, now I use emacs and its mule-utf-8-unix encoding for commit buffer.
On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 2:15 PM, Sergey Sfeli sergey.sf...@gmail.comwrote:
Ruslan Popov wrote:
I've tried to use Fossil on russian version of Windows 7. I made commit
with
russian text in comment, when I run the
On 25 June 2010 12:15, Sergey Sfeli sergey.sf...@gmail.com wrote:
Ruslan Popov wrote:
I've tried to use Fossil on russian version of Windows 7. I made commit with
russian text in comment, when I run the UI and look at timeline, I saw that
russian text looks like squares.
Why don't just use
On 25 June 2010 21:34, Michal Suchanek hramr...@centrum.cz wrote:
Perhaps fossil should have a system encoding which it would get from
the environment (locales, windows codepage) and mark all commit
messages with it.
I vote that this is an extraordinarily bad idea.
Fossil is a *distributed*
On 25 June 2010 11:15, Sergey Sfeli sergey.sf...@gmail.com wrote:
Ruslan Popov wrote:
I've tried to use Fossil on russian version of Windows 7. I made commit with
russian text in comment, when I run the UI and look at timeline, I saw that
russian text looks like squares.
Why don't just
The trouble is that UTF-8 is a poor standard. It bloats many texts, is
quite expensive to parse, and has only one redeeming feature: It never
creates embedded nulls. I suppose that it shares its encoding with
ASCII is a feature too, but only a minor one.
Personally, I think that most systems
One of the reasons that I'm a fan of SCSU is that, with even a
relatively simple encoder, it produces output which is comparable in
efficiency to that of most legacy encodings.
On 25 June 2010 18:53, Michal Suchanek hramr...@centrum.cz wrote:
On 25 June 2010 18:09, Owen Shepherd
As an FYI I googled SCSU
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Compression_Scheme_for_Unicode
Owen Shepherd wrote:
One of the reasons that I'm a fan of SCSU is that, with even a
relatively simple encoder, it produces output which is comparable in
efficiency to that of most legacy encodings.
On 25 June 2010 20:18, Owen Shepherd owen.sheph...@e43.eu wrote:
One of the reasons that I'm a fan of SCSU is that, with even a
relatively simple encoder, it produces output which is comparable in
efficiency to that of most legacy encodings.
SCSU is a horrendous encoding because it uses
On 25 June 2010 19:36, Michal Suchanek hramr...@centrum.cz wrote:
On 25 June 2010 20:18, Owen Shepherd owen.sheph...@e43.eu wrote:
One of the reasons that I'm a fan of SCSU is that, with even a
relatively simple encoder, it produces output which is comparable in
efficiency to that of most
10 matches
Mail list logo
