Re: [fossil-users] Skin almost finished.

On Thu, 30 Apr 2015 15:05:57 -0700 jungle Boogie wrote: > On 30 April 2015 at 14:57, Ron W wrote: > > > > I like it. The maximum width of the main text area (the "paper") is a little > > low, so I see a lot of border background. (my browser width is "set" for > > websites with sidebars on both s

Re: [fossil-users] Skin almost finished.

On 2015-05-01 10:09:46, John Found wrote: > (...) > On the one hand, increasing the width, you are increasing the use of the > screen area which is good. > On the other hand, the readability of the plain text articles decreases for > very wide texts. > > Anyway, for the purposes of source code

Re: [fossil-users] Skin almost finished.

On Fri, 1 May 2015 10:43:45 +0200 "Martin S. Weber" wrote: > By giving the user the control over the width of the rendered page back > by making it a function of the browser's client width, the user can > easily adjust the width of the browser for prose reading, often with a > single keystroke (e

Re: [fossil-users] Skin almost finished.

On 30/04/15 22:12, John Found wrote: On Fri, 1 May 2015 00:03:01 +0300 John Found wrote: Well, the first version of my new skin is ready and uploaded. I named it "ProgrammingClassic". And the URL is: http://fresh.flatassembler.net/fossil/repo/fresh It is published below, but I decided to p

Re: [fossil-users] Skin almost finished.

On 2015-05-01 11:58:30, John Found wrote: > (...) > Well, maybe it is a bad practice, but my browser is always maximized. > Also, all people I know maximize their browsers... Which is why I was saying, one keystroke and you're ready for prose-reading-mode, but the other way around, there's no way

Re: [fossil-users] Skin almost finished.

On 2015-05-01 4:43, Martin S. Weber wrote: This is more user-friendly than deciding an optimal reading width for them (that may or may not pay attention to user-styles, user-selected fonts, one of the ways a document can be scaled on the user-end, etc.), so here's a tip to the hat for you: *.

Re: [fossil-users] Skin almost finished.

On Fri, 01 May 2015 08:49:30 -0400 Doug Franklin wrote: > On 2015-05-01 4:43, Martin S. Weber wrote: > > > This is more user-friendly than deciding an optimal > > reading width for them (that may or may not pay attention to user-styles, > > user-selected fonts, one of the ways a document can be

[fossil-users] Merge operation not merging newly created files.

Hello. I'm using version 1.32 [6c40678e91] and I can't understand how merge operation works. Here is example of what I'm try to do: 1. branch: trunk 2. commit: add file a and add file b 3. switch to branch b: 4. commit: move b to c 5 commit: add new file b 6. merge b into trunk but, in this ste

Re: [fossil-users] Merge operation not merging newly created files.

On 5/1/15, Fossil User wrote: > Hello. > > I'm using version 1.32 [6c40678e91] and I can't understand how merge > operation works. > Here is example of what I'm try to do: > > 1. branch: trunk > 2. commit: add file a and add file b > > 3. switch to branch b: > 4. commit: move b to c How is that p

Re: [fossil-users] Merge operation not merging newly created files.

3 should be create and switch to branch b Please see attached file, it is full console text dump. 2015-05-01 18:21 GMT+02:00 Richard Hipp : > On 5/1/15, Fossil User wrote: > > Hello. > > > > I'm using version 1.32 [6c40678e91] and I can't understand how merge > > operation works. > > Here is ex

Re: [fossil-users] Merge operation not merging newly created files.

On 5/1/15, Fossil User wrote: > 3 should be create and switch to branch b > > Please see attached file, it is full console text dump. > This mailing list strips attachments. Please paste in-line. -- D. Richard Hipp d...@sqlite.org ___ fossil-users mai

Re: [fossil-users] Merge operation not merging newly created files.

This is a bash prompt. fossil init repo project-id: fb0c7719bbe9fa2723a658b8f729cf287c2d3df7 server-id: 608b8566ad457edc073e16a3cd7175f7b36a8bd0 admin-user: as (initial password is "702370") fossil open repo project-name: repository: /tmp/merge/repo l

Re: [fossil-users] Skin almost finished.

On Fri, 1 May 2015 10:10:36 -0400 Richard Hipp wrote: > Off-list reply. > > Do we have a CA for you on file? If not, can you send one in > (https://www.fossil-scm.org/fossil/doc/trunk/www/copyright-release.html) > so that we can add your new skin as one of the options in standard > Fossil build

Re: [fossil-users] Merge operation not merging newly created files.

Tnx. I'm busy chasing unrelated issues in SQLite at the moment. I'll look into this when I get a chance. On 5/1/15, Fossil User wrote: >This is a bash prompt. > > > fossil init repo >project-id: fb0c7719bbe9fa2723a658b8f729cf287c2d3df7 >server-id: 608b8566ad457edc073e1

Re: [fossil-users] Skin almost finished.

On Fri, 1 May 2015 12:46:46 -0400 Richard Hipp wrote: > If you will just sign and send in a Fossil CA, I can then pull your > code. Then we can figure out what enhancements are needed in Fossil > to make it convenient to use your skin without using dirty tricks like > putting images in Wiki atta

Re: [fossil-users] Skin almost finished.

On 5/1/15, John Found wrote: > > I missed the point here. Probably my English... It is open source. > Why I have to sign this CA document? In addition, I can't sign it > because I don't use PGP and don't have private/public key at all. > We need the signed Contributors Agreement (CA) so that we c

Re: [fossil-users] Merge operation not merging newly created files.

I think it is a bug in fossil. Bellow git work flow for compassion. Best, Anofos git init . Initialized empty Git repository in /tmp/git_test/.git/ echo "a" > a echo "b" > b git add a b git commit -m "a b" [master (root-commit) aa9af4a] a b 2 files changed, 2 insertions

Re: [fossil-users] Limiting HTTP/1.1 host

On 4/30/2015 12:36 PM, Ron W wrote: > On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 10:36 AM, Andy Goth wrote: >> Seems I have a lot of people trying to access my repository who have >> no business doing so: >> >> I'd like to limit access based on the HTTP/1.1 Host: header. If >> Host: isn't un.is-a-geek.com

Re: [fossil-users] Limiting HTTP/1.1 host

On Fri, May 1, 2015 at 8:56 PM, Andy Goth wrote: > > My point is that any attempt to access my repository other than through > one of the few expected hostnames is clearly illegitimate, and I wish to > block it. Because this is an application-layer thing, this cannot be > done with iptables, onl

Re: [fossil-users] Limiting HTTP/1.1 host

On 5/1/2015 8:12 PM, Ron W wrote: > I somehow got the impression you wanted to limit the sources of incoming > requests, thus my idea to limit the addresses from which the requests > would be accepted. Nah, usernames and passwords are better for that. I can't know in advance which addresses each