On Aug 12, 2015, at 5:57 PM, Andy Bradford wrote:
>
> Thus said Warren Young on Wed, 12 Aug 2015 13:50:10 -0600:
>
>> Fossil will be more consistent in its behavior when mv-rm-files
>> becomes the default behavior.
>
> I'm not sure
> how changing this will make it any more consistent.
T
Thus said Warren Young on Wed, 12 Aug 2015 13:50:10 -0600:
> Fossil will be more consistent in its behavior when mv-rm-files
> becomes the default behavior.
Personally, I like the current behavior of leaving the files behind,
though I can see that some would like a different behavior.
> On Aug 12, 2015, at 2:52 PM, Jacek Cała wrote:
>
> I had to resolve the problem and cannot easily revert to the suspicious state
> I had reported previously.
The past isn’t as important as fixing the Fossil text file inconsistency for
the future.
If you’re going to use CR+LF line endings,
Thanks Warren for valuable comments. I had to resolve the problem and
cannot easily revert to the suspicious state I had reported previously. I
wonder whether 'fossil stat' would give me the answer I was looking for.
Will remember it for the future.
Cheers,
Jacek
2015-08-12 21:12 GMT+01:00 Wa
A few recent threads have brought up crnl-glob, and in one, someone else
pointed out that “CRNL” would be better as “CRLF”, and I agreed. I even typo’d
“crlf-glob” in a more recent post.
But, after a trip to the source code, I now know that what this setting
actually does it makes Fossil ignor
On Aug 12, 2015, at 2:13 AM, Jacek Cała wrote:
>
> I work primarily on Windows and whenever fossil complains about CR/LF I just
> ignore it (saying 'a' during the commit).
Don’t do that.
Fossil is trying to tell you about a real problem. It means you have either
got:
a. A file with mixed li
On Aug 12, 2015, at 5:44 AM, Jacek Cała wrote:
>
> CONFLICT path/to/the/problematic/files/... - edited locally but deleted by
> update
>
> As a result fossil did not delete all 102 conflicted files but left them in
> my local working copy. That's not the best resolution, I think
Historically,
On Aug 12, 2015 1:19 AM, "Stephan Beal" wrote:
>
> On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 10:13 AM, Jacek Cała wrote:
>>
>> Thanks for the suggestion... no luck in finding '<'. It matches only
_FOSSIL_ and a few binary files. It could be the line endings because I
work primarily on Windows and whenever foss
ntrolled files then fossil
> > does not know about a conflict. If it reports a conflict and yet does not
> > tag it with such a block, then something is wrong (in fossil), but we are
> > not currently aware of any such bugs.
> >
> > --
> > - stephan beal
> > h
; tag it with such a block, then something is wrong (in fossil), but we are
> not currently aware of any such bugs.
>
> --
> - stephan beal
> http://wanderinghorse.net/home/stephan/
> http://gplus.to/sgbeal
> "Freedom is sloppy. But since tyranny's the only guara
On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 1:44 PM, Jacek Cała wrote:
> ...
>
CONFLICT path/to/the/problematic/files/... - edited locally but deleted by
> update
>
> As a result fossil did not delete all 102 conflicted files but left them
> in my local working copy. That's not the best resolution, I think, because
Ok, puzzle solved.
As suggested in the fossil message I did 'fossil undo' and then 'fossil
update > fossil.log'. That revealed the problematic conflicts:
CONFLICT path/to/the/problematic/files/... - edited locally but deleted by
update
As a result fossil did not delete all 102 conflicted files b
On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 10:13 AM, Jacek Cała wrote:
> Thanks for the suggestion... no luck in finding '<'. It matches only
> _FOSSIL_ and a few binary files. It could be the line endings because I
> work primarily on Windows and whenever fossil complains about CR/LF I just
> ignore it (saying
Thanks for the suggestion... no luck in finding '<'. It matches only
_FOSSIL_ and a few binary files. It could be the line endings because I
work primarily on Windows and whenever fossil complains about CR/LF I just
ignore it (saying 'a' during the commit).
However, I guess, there is no way to
On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 9:07 AM, Jacek Cała wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> I've done fossil update and got a suspicious message about merge conflicts
> (see below). The list of changes is long (21k), so I can't easily see all
> changes file by file and the last thousand is just ADDED or REMOVED.
>
> Is t
Hi All,
I've done fossil update and got a suspicious message about merge conflicts
(see below). The list of changes is long (21k), so I can't easily see all
changes file by file and the last thousand is just ADDED or REMOVED.
Is there a way I can check what merge conflicts fossil means in this
16 matches
Mail list logo
