On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 7:10 PM, Leo Razoumov wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 18:03, Brian Smith wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 2:40 PM, Leo Razoumov
> wrote:
> >>
> >> Looking through the fossil source code I found places where manifests
> >> are clearsign-ed. But where are signatures verifi
On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 19:37, Themba Fletcher wrote:
>
> If I understand correctly, what happened at github was that someone exploited
> a misconfiguration in the rails framework to insert his own public key as
> trusted with respect to several repositories.
>
> The "fossil verify" command you p
On Mar 7, 2012, at 19:10, Leo Razoumov wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 18:03, Brian Smith wrote:
>> On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 2:40 PM, Leo Razoumov wrote:
>>>
>>> Looking through the fossil source code I found places where manifests
>>> are clearsign-ed. But where are signatures verified?
>>
On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 19:11, Brian Smith wrote:
>
> On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 4:10 PM, Leo Razoumov wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 18:03, Brian Smith wrote:
>> > On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 2:40 PM, Leo Razoumov
>> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Looking through the fossil source code I found places where m
> Well, ability to slice and dice repository data any which way you want
> is a big selling point of having a proper DB behind an SCM. Good way
> of searching in a repository would set fossil apart from the crowd.
>
> --Leo--
Sorry for this very late reply.
I would like to add that having full te
On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 18:03, Brian Smith wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 2:40 PM, Leo Razoumov wrote:
>>
>> Looking through the fossil source code I found places where manifests
>> are clearsign-ed. But where are signatures verified?
>
> They're not. It's designed for when you're auditing check-
On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 2:40 PM, Leo Razoumov wrote:
> Looking through the fossil source code I found places where manifests
> are clearsign-ed. But where are signatures verified?
>
>
They're not. It's designed for when you're auditing check-ins (after, say,
a security breach..)
-B
__
Looking through the fossil source code I found places where manifests
are clearsign-ed. But where are signatures verified?
--Leo--
___
fossil-users mailing list
fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org
http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/f
On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 14:30, wrote:
> because of the hassle of re-working their multitudes of files or
> create/maintain Fossil branches using Richard's suggestion.
>
If square bracket limitation is the only thing that make fossil
unacceptable to you then, please, consider making your own fossi
2012/3/7 Richard Hipp :
> The code that implements the filename restrictions is here:
>
> http://www.fossil-scm.org/fossil/artifact/3e15b2476f1?ln=439-441
>
> You are welcomed to comment out those lines in your own copies of Fossil if
> you like.
I've already found that reference somewhere in
Ha, looking at the use of []'s in the example I mentioned was due to
individual programmers attempting version control on a file by file
basis. They were sticking revision info inside the brackets while
still using Git? Definitely not my recommendation!
Isn't that why we use an SCM?
I was only re
On Wed, 7 Mar 2012 11:11:55 -0500
sky5w...@gmail.com wrote:
> I already voiced a release engineer's reluctance to pursue Fossil due
> to the restriction of '[]'s.
I'm with computers since time of Apple's IIe and never encountered need
to have filenames with '[]'s.
Even if such would arise, I'd t
On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 12:26 PM, Ștefan Fulea wrote:
> 2012/3/7 :
> > If you are considering cross-platform issues, is it not unreasonable
> > to add your choice of CSM's requirements?
> > A brief wiki survey lists the older win95 VFAT restrictions include:
> > |\?*<":>+[]/
> I understand the eff
2012/3/7 :
> If you are considering cross-platform issues, is it not unreasonable
> to add your choice of CSM's requirements?
> A brief wiki survey lists the older win95 VFAT restrictions include:
> |\?*<":>+[]/
I understand the effort to prevent trouble (and that's what people
will usually do any
I thoroughly agree with you up to a point. That point being repeatedly
asked and answered, it is then up to you to decide whether to proceed
with the tool as is or create a Fossil branch to support your design
goals. ;)
I already voiced a release engineer's reluctance to pursue Fossil due
to the re
Great, thanks! That solves my issue.
Cheers,
Jacek
2012/3/6 Tomek Kott :
> You probably want "fossil config pull ticket." I believe those kinds of
> changes (i.e., not checkins, actual tickets, or wiki changes) are stored in
> config.
>
> Tomek
>
> 2012/3/6 Jacek Cała
>>
>> Hi All,
>>
>> I
Thank you for examples. I wish to say that I have a high regard for
the work being done and my objections were and are sole for putting
that work and effort to good use.
> In some contexts fossil might try to treat [abcdef] as a uuid or wiki page
> name, and would fail to do so (or, just as bad,
17 matches
Mail list logo
