On 11/08/2011, at 8:02 AM, Stephan Beal wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 1:35 AM, Will Duquette wrote:
> ...development context. If I create the new branch explicitly, then I've
> changed my development context in my head AND in my work area.
>
>
> Thank you for so elegantly describing what
On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 1:35 AM, Will Duquette wrote:
> ...development context. If I create the new branch explicitly, then I've
> changed my development context in my head AND in my work area.
>
Thank you for so elegantly describing what i was unable to express nearly as
well :).
--
- s
On Aug 9, 2011, at 7:58 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? I'm not being sarcastic or critical here.
> A lot of p
On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 1:39 PM, Ron Wilson wrote:
>
> >
> >> $ fossil branch next espresso-feature
> >
> > That's an interesting feature request. I'll take it under
> consideration...
>
> What about allowing a "null commit" on branch? That way,
>
> fossil commit -branch new-branch
>
> could
On Tue, Aug 9, 2011 at 2:47 PM, 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
Without using the batch files, I've done everything you have by hand using
fossil 1.19 2011 07 22. When I go back to the server, and write fossil open
ops, I correctly get the client1.txt file on the server side. Therefore, it
is either a windows XP vs. 7 issue, or a fossil vs. 1.18 vs 1.19 issue.
On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 4:28 PM, Stephan Beal wrote:
> Sorry, i didn't mean to imply that such a change _would_ break my setup (i
> had never even heard of that header until this thread!)
>
And a side note: HTML5 deprecates frames altogether (but not iframe), by the
way.
--
- stephan beal
On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 4:23 PM, Ben Summers wrote:
> Yes, that was why I suggested changing the default to something which
> caused minimal problems. The paranoid will probably be running their own
> servers anyway.
>
> In any case, the DENY setting only affected those doing something fancy.
>
On 10 Aug 2011, at 15:11, Stephan Beal wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 9:24 AM, Ben Summers wrote:
>> It sounds like the default should change, and those who really care should
>> adjust their web server.
>
> Just FYI: the vast majority of users do not have admin-level rights to their
> publ
On Wed, 10 Aug 2011 10:31:56 +0200
Gilles wrote:
[...]
> At this point, "fossil ls" lists two files that are apparently part of
> the checkout, but running "fossil commit" or "fossil ci" simply says
> "nothing has changed". How can I commit those two files?
Apparently, you're confusing files pres
On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 9:24 AM, Ben Summers wrote:
> It sounds like the default should change, and those who really care should
> adjust their web server.
>
Just FYI: the vast majority of users do not have admin-level rights to their
publicly-hosted servers. i.e. fossil changes which _require_
On Wed, 10 Aug 2011 11:11:03 +0400, Konstantin Khomoutov
wrote:
>I suspect the file was located in some subdirectory and you tried to
>`rm` it while being in some other place of the directory structure.
Right on. I could successfuly remove the two files. I'll check what
"shunning" is.
At this po
On 9 Aug 2011, at 22:14, Martin S. Weber wrote:
> 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 noscri
On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 08:51:42AM +0200, Gilles wrote:
> 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:
On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 4:50 AM, wrote:
> 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
15 matches
Mail list logo
