Re: [fossil-users] Proposed improvement to inheritedprivilegessubscripts.

Scott Robison wrote: > --===0702352335== > Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f46d044286d854da5a05042007d5 > > --f46d044286d854da5a05042007d5 > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 > > On Sep 28, 2014 12:49 AM, "Stephan Beal" wrote: >> >> Sidenote: i'm curious why most pe

Re: [fossil-users] Pessimism about CommonMark in fossil

Stephan Beal decía, en el mensaje "Re: [fossil-users] Pessimism about CommonMark in fossil" del domingo, 28 de septiembre de 2014 13:45:58: > On Sun, Sep 28, 2014 at 6:39 PM, Natacha Porté > wrote: > But this is still about disambiguating "Markdown", without look

Re: [fossil-users] Compilation with SSL option fails on Win7

As of the very latest trunk [80b4adddec], you'll also need to add the following to the command lines: FOSSIL_BUILD_SSL=1 -- Joe Mistachkin ___ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin

Re: [fossil-users] Pessimism about CommonMark in fossil

Hello: Thanks Natasha, for reviewing the CommonMark specification and identifying issues applicable to your Fossil - Markdown parser. Your arguments are persuasive. Your obvious skill and knowledge about markdown and general text parsing would be of high value to the CommonMark group and I think

Re: [fossil-users] Compilation with SSL option fails on Win7

to...@acm.org wrote: > > I'm building on Win7 64-bit. Tomorrow, at work, I can try again on a Win7 > 32-bit, and see if that makes a difference. > Ok, that explains it. I had not tested x64 compilation with SSL enabled prior to today. Thanks for the report. Please try again with the latest

Re: [fossil-users] Compilation with SSL option fails on Win7

I'm building on Win7 64-bit. Tomorrow, at work, I can try again on a Win7 32-bit, and see if that makes a difference. Version [ee46563cbd] built without any errors, and apparently has SSL support (much larger file size, and an attempt to connect to an HTTPS server did not produce errors about

Re: [fossil-users] Compilation with SSL option fails on Win7

to...@acm.org wrote: > > When I tried with an earlier version [ee46563cbd], it worked OK. Since the > latest trunk fails consistently (regardless of Perl version used), something > must have broken sometime in between these two check-ins. > That version ([ee46563cbd]) makes no attempt to au

Re: [fossil-users] Compilation with SSL option fails on Win7

Nope! The same exact error. I uninstalled StraberryPerl before installing ActivePerl. So, the problem is elsewhere. Also, as I mentioned in the follow-up email: The problem appears in the latest trunk version [e061a675e6]. When I tried with an earlier version [ee46563cbd], it worked OK. Sin

Re: [fossil-users] Pessimism about CommonMark in fossil

http://xkcd.com/927/ -- D. Richard Hipp Sent from phone - Excuse brevity On Sep 28, 2014 12:46 PM, "Stephan Beal" wrote: > On Sun, Sep 28, 2014 at 6:39 PM, Natacha Porté > wrote: > >> I completely share the opinion above, except I'm afraid you have >> misunderstood the goal of CommonMark: it's

Re: [fossil-users] Compilation with SSL option fails on Win7

to...@acm.org wrote: > > (I have installed the latest perl - Strawberry Perl, and I have installed > openssl-1.0.1i.tar.gz under the compat subdirectory) > I suspect this may have to do with the line-endings in the OpenSSL files. Please try again with ActiveState Perl and let us know if that

Re: [fossil-users] Compilation with SSL option fails on Win7

Update (if it helps): The problem appears in the latest trunk version [e061a675e6]. I also tried with an earlier version [ee46563cbd], and it worked OK. But the latest trunk fails consistently, so something must have broken in between these two. -Original Message- From: to...@acm.o

[fossil-users] Compilation with SSL option fails on Win7

Here's what I do: (I have installed the latest perl - Strawberry Perl, and I have installed openssl-1.0.1i.tar.gz under the compat subdirectory) Then (with MSVC) I do: nmake -f Makefile.msc FOSSIL_ENABLE_SSL=1 and after some successful work, it halts with this message: -- C:

Re: [fossil-users] Pessimism about CommonMark in fossil

On Sun, Sep 28, 2014 at 6:39 PM, Natacha Porté wrote: > I completely share the opinion above, except I'm afraid you have > misunderstood the goal of CommonMark: it's not about unifying or > standardizing wiki format, only unifying Markdown. > i understand that, but there are several competing di

Re: [fossil-users] Pessimism about CommonMark in fossil

Hello, on Sunday 28 September 2014 at 17:58, Stephan Beal wrote: > - Wiki syntaxes have always been a matter of personal taste, and there are > no less than 100 different ones out there in use. To anyone who believes > they can convince people to switch to a "common" dialect... i've got a > bridge

Re: [fossil-users] Pessimism about CommonMark in fossil

On Sun, Sep 28, 2014 at 5:36 PM, Natacha Porté wrote: > authors hope). Fortunately, there is no rush to take such a decision, as > a community we can reasonably to wait and see how CommonMark adoption > pans out. > > [1]: http://commonmark.org/ i am completely ambivalent on the topic of which w

[fossil-users] Pessimism about CommonMark in fossil

Hello, as you might already know, I'm the primary author of libsoldout and its integration into fossil to perform markdown-to-html conversion. If you followed recent news, you might have heard of CommonMark[1], which is an attempt to unify most implementations and extensions of Markdown, by provi

Re: [fossil-users] Proposed improvement to inheritedprivilegessubscripts.

On Sep 28, 2014 12:49 AM, "Stephan Beal" wrote: > > Sidenote: i'm curious why most people prefer postscript addition, when prefix is "never slower and sometimes faster." (Not that it matters one iota for a case like this, it just seems to be very deeply embedded in most people i know.) I think mo