Re: [fossil-users] Ordering ticket priority/severity

2014-10-12 Thread Jacek Cała
Hi, Below is one of my ticket report pages. I'm not entirely sure it's the best approach but works fine for me. What it does is two selects. The inner select classifies status, priority, severity and difficulty so then I can order them appropriately. The outer select presents the data in human r

Re: [fossil-users] http --enforce-remote-user

2014-10-12 Thread David Mason
On 12 October 2014 13:59, Richard Hipp wrote: > > The shun mechanism is really intended only to remove spam or illegal > content. Yeah shunning is a really big stick. If I understand it correctly, if you ever shunned a 0-length file, you would never be able to commit a zero-length file again! I

Re: [fossil-users] auto-sync before merge?

2014-10-12 Thread Matt Welland
On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 8:01 PM, Stephan Beal wrote: > On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 10:10 PM, Ross Berteig > wrote: > >> Personally, I wouldn't expect that at all. The "fossil merge" command >> edits the currently open workspace based ... >> > > +1 > > >> The "fossil update" command on the other hand

Re: [fossil-users] Ordering ticket priority/severity

2014-10-12 Thread tonyp
I suppose the simplest solution would be to rename them to start with the required digit. Example: 1 Critical 2 Important -Original Message- From: org.fossil-scm.fossil-us...@io7m.com Sent: Monday, October 13, 2014 12:00 AM To: fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org Subject: [fossil-users

[fossil-users] Ordering ticket priority/severity

2014-10-12 Thread org.fossil-scm.fossil-users
'Lo. Currently, if I do, in a ticket report: ORDER BY priority, severity I definitely get something ordered by priority and severity, but of course the ordering relation for both columns is lexicographical. That is, "Important" > "Critical" because "Critical" appears earlier in the alphabet.

Re: [fossil-users] http --enforce-remote-user

2014-10-12 Thread Richard Hipp
On Sun, Oct 12, 2014 at 10:53 AM, David Mason wrote: > On 12 October 2014 06:06, Richard Hipp wrote: > > > > No such luck. The artifacts are present in an arbitrary order. It is > > entirely possible that a "push" might involve multiple server round-trips > > and that the firrst server round-t

Re: [fossil-users] http --enforce-remote-user

2014-10-12 Thread David Mason
On 12 October 2014 06:06, Richard Hipp wrote: > > No such luck. The artifacts are present in an arbitrary order. It is > entirely possible that a "push" might involve multiple server round-trips > and that the firrst server round-trip might send artifacts from later > check-ins while the later r

Re: [fossil-users] http --enforce-remote-user

2014-10-12 Thread Richard Hipp
On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 11:25 PM, David Mason wrote: > I'm still digging around in the code, trying to grok all this. > > Presumably there can be multiple manifests in a sync (or push) because > there could be multiple commits without a push, and then they would > all be presented at once. > > I