On 10 September 2015 at 19:23, Noam Postavsky
wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 9:29 AM, Michal Suchanek wrote:
>> Given that fossil does not support history rewriting by design the
>> commit number on a particular branch counting from root is unique and
>> stable per branch across all repos.
>>
>
Dear list,
Is there a way to get a diff between what I had in the disk before
executing "fossil update" and after?
I'd be happy to read the (fine) manual, but I cannot find the place. Thanks!
Yours faithfully,
Paolo
___
fossil-users mailing list
fossil-
On 9/11/15, Paolo Bolzoni wrote:
> Dear list,
>
> Is there a way to get a diff between what I had in the disk before
> executing "fossil update" and after?
No there isn't. The question hasn't come up before. But now that you
mention it, it seems like it might be a useful thing to have, no?
Per
On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 1:22 PM, Richard Hipp wrote:
> I'm not sure "--undo" is the right name for this option. Other
> suggestions?
>
--from-undo
or:
--from undo (special-case name)
?
--
- stephan beal
http://wanderinghorse.net/home/stephan/
http://gplus.to/sgbeal
"Freedom is sloppy. Bu
On 9/11/15, Stephan Beal wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 1:22 PM, Richard Hipp wrote:
>
>> I'm not sure "--undo" is the right name for this option. Other
>> suggestions?
>>
>
> --from-undo
> or:
> --from undo (special-case name)
>
The code on trunk now does "fossil diff --undo". I'm very open
Cool, I've often wanted this feature.
fossil diff --whatif
On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 10:11 AM, Richard Hipp wrote:
> On 9/11/15, Stephan Beal wrote:
> > On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 1:22 PM, Richard Hipp wrote:
> >
> >> I'm not sure "--undo" is the right name for this option. Other
> >> suggestions?
On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 9:11 AM, Richard Hipp wrote:
> On 9/11/15, Stephan Beal wrote:
> > On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 1:22 PM, Richard Hipp wrote:
> >
> >> I'm not sure "--undo" is the right name for this option. Other
> >> suggestions?
> >>
> >
> > --from-undo
> > or:
> > --from undo (special-ca
On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 3:57 AM, Michal Suchanek wrote:
> On 10 September 2015 at 19:23, Noam Postavsky
> wrote:
>> For example see figure 3 of
>> http://fossil-scm.org/xfer/doc/trunk/www/branching.wiki
>>
>> Both check-ins 3 and 4 are equidistant from the root.
>
> And each is on a differnt bran
On Sep 11, 2015, at 8:11 AM, Richard Hipp wrote:
>
> On 9/11/15, Stephan Beal wrote:
>> On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 1:22 PM, Richard Hipp wrote:
>>
>>> I'm not sure "--undo" is the right name for this option. Other
>>> suggestions?
>>>
>>
>> --from-undo
>> or:
>> --from undo (special-case name)
On 9/11/15, Warren Young wrote:
>
> diff --undo sounds like you’re asking it to undo the diff, which makes no
> sense.
I agree. I'm just having trouble coming up with an alternative.
>
> How does “fossil diff --last” strike you?
Still a little generic, I think, but moving in the right directio
diff --erent
or
diff --erance
Scott Doctor
sc...@scottdoctor.com
On 9/11/2015 10:27 AM, Richard Hipp wrote:
On 9/11/15, Warren Young wrote:
diff --undo sounds like you’re asking it to undo the diff, which makes no
sense.
I agree. I'm just having trouble coming up with an alte
diff --erence
misspelled it
Scott Doctor
sc...@scottdoctor.com
On 9/11/2015 10:38 AM, Scott Doctor wrote:
diff --erent
or
diff --erance
Scott Doctor
sc...@scottdoctor.com
On 9/11/2015 10:27 AM, Richard Hipp wrote:
On 9/11/15, Warren Young wrote:
diff --undo soun
On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 1:12 PM, Warren Young wrote:
> On Sep 11, 2015, at 8:11 AM, Richard Hipp wrote:
> > Maybe "--from-undo" is slightly better, but not a great deal.
>
> Though --from-undo is better in that it tells you what the option does,
> you have to know that Fossil has an undo buffer
On Sep 11, 2015, at 11:41 AM, Ron W wrote:
>
> On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 1:12 PM, Warren Young wrote:
>
> Though --from-undo is better in that it tells you what the option does, you
> have to know that Fossil has an undo buffer to make sense of it. That’s
> exposing internal implementation det
diff --before(-update)
On Fri, 11 Sep 2015 20:20:53 +0200, Warren Young wrote:
On Sep 11, 2015, at 11:41 AM, Ron W wrote:
On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 1:12 PM, Warren Young wrote:
Though --from-undo is better in that it tells you what the option does,
you have to know that Fossil has an undo
On 11 September 2015 at 17:13, Noam Postavsky
wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 3:57 AM, Michal Suchanek wrote:
>> On 10 September 2015 at 19:23, Noam Postavsky
>> wrote:
>>> For example see figure 3 of
>>> http://fossil-scm.org/xfer/doc/trunk/www/branching.wiki
>>>
>>> Both check-ins 3 and 4 are
I am getting confuzzled. Could someone
explain the difference between a leaf, branch, and fork.
Scott Doctor
sc...@scottdoctor.com
--
On 9/11/2015 1:04 PM, Michal Suchanek
wrote:
On 11 September 2015 at 17
Although I think --undo is not too bad as it clearly does not make sense to
'undo' a diff, another alternative that is less 'verbal' that might work is
diff --back (as in "diff with what would be there if I were to go back, or
back out the recent changes...")
-Original Message-
From
On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 10:15 PM, Scott Doctor
wrote:
>
> I am getting confuzzled. Could someone explain the difference between a
> leaf, branch, and fork.
>
In fossil a branch and fork are technically the same thing, the terms are
just used in different contexts (branch = intentional, fork =
un
On 9/11/2015 7:11 AM, Richard Hipp wrote:
On 9/11/15, Stephan Beal wrote:
On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 1:22 PM, Richard Hipp wrote:
I'm not sure "--undo" is the right name for this option. Other
suggestions?
--from-undo
or:
--from undo (special-case name)
Adding support for "undo" as a s
On 9/11/15, to...@acm.org wrote:
> Although I think --undo is not too bad as it clearly does not make sense to
> 'undo' a diff, another alternative that is less 'verbal' that might work is
>
> diff --back (as in "diff with what would be there if I were to go back, or
> back out the recent changes
On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 4:04 PM, Michal Suchanek wrote:
> On 11 September 2015 at 17:13, Noam Postavsky
> wrote:
>> On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 3:57 AM, Michal Suchanek wrote:
>>> On 10 September 2015 at 19:23, Noam Postavsky
>>> wrote:
For example see figure 3 of
http://fossil-scm.org/xf
On Sep 11, 2015, at 2:33 PM, Ross Berteig wrote:
>
> I guess the other question to ask is how many of us have a project with a
> branch named "undo”?
Branches don’t enter into it. The proposal was for “diff --undo”, not “diff
undo”.
___
fossil-users
On Sep 11, 2015, at 2:34 PM, Noam Postavsky
wrote:
>
> Okay, if you define branch that way…
It isn’t a question of philosophical semantics. Stephan is telling you a fact
about how Fossil behaves, not offering a fuzzy definition.
Maybe I’m being overly sensitive about your choice of words, bu
On 9/11/2015 2:10 PM, Warren Young wrote:
On Sep 11, 2015, at 2:33 PM, Ross Berteig
wrote:
I guess the other question to ask is how many of us have a project
with a branch named "undo”?
Branches don’t enter into it. The proposal was for “diff --undo”,
not “diff undo”.
An early suggestio
On Sep 11, 2015, at 4:19 PM, Ross Berteig wrote:
>
> On 9/11/2015 2:10 PM, Warren Young wrote:
>> On Sep 11, 2015, at 2:33 PM, Ross Berteig
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> I guess the other question to ask is how many of us have a project
>>> with a branch named "undo”?
>>
> An early suggestion from either
On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 5:28 PM, Warren Young wrote:
> On Sep 11, 2015, at 2:34 PM, Noam Postavsky
> wrote:
>>
>> Okay, if you define branch that way…
>
> It isn’t a question of philosophical semantics. Stephan is telling you a
> fact about how Fossil behaves, not offering a fuzzy definition.
On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 5:28 PM, Warren Young wrote:
> It isn’t really a hash since it isn’t computed from the contents of the
> artifact. It’s just a random number, expressed as a long hex string. It
> *looks* like a hash, but it isn’t. Proof:
>
> cd ~/tmp
> f new ../x.fossil
> f new ..
On Sep 11, 2015, at 4:40 PM, Noam Postavsky
wrote:
>
> On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 5:28 PM, Warren Young wrote:
>> On Sep 11, 2015, at 2:34 PM, Noam Postavsky
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Okay, if you define branch that way…
>>
>> It isn’t a question of philosophical semantics. Stephan is telling you a
On Sep 11, 2015, at 4:46 PM, Ron W wrote:
>
> The commit ID really is a hash. It is the hash of the manifest artifact. The
> manifest's 'D Card' has the date/time stamp of the commit. Also, the
> manifest's 'P card' refers to the parent commit(s). Therefore, the commit IDs
> of otherwise ident
On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 6:28 PM, Warren Young wrote:
>
> Let me put it a bit differently than before, since I don’t seem to be
> getting my point across. When you say “fossil up” and get a whole pile of
> changes, your next question is, “What exactly is the content of those
> changes?” This feat
Thus said Richard Hipp on Fri, 11 Sep 2015 10:11:30 -0400:
> "fossil diff --versus-undo" maybe???
What if instead of making this a feature of ``fossil diff'' it became a
feature of ``fossil undo?''
fossil undo --diff
Andy
--
TAI64 timestamp: 400055f36093
___
On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 6:57 PM, Warren Young wrote:
>
> I wonder if this is an implementation detail leaking through into the UI,
> though. Under what conditions, except for Noam’s contrived example with
> hardcoded dates, is there a useful distinction between “hash” — implying a
> number that y
fossil diff -before
or
fossil diff -before-commit
?
El 12/9/2015 1:14, "Andy Bradford" escribió:
> Thus said Richard Hipp on Fri, 11 Sep 2015 10:11:30 -0400:
>
> > "fossil diff --versus-undo" maybe???
>
> What if instead of making this a feature of ``fossil diff'' it became a
> feature of ``f
On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 5:14 PM, Andy Bradford
wrote:
> Thus said Richard Hipp on Fri, 11 Sep 2015 10:11:30 -0400:
>
> > "fossil diff --versus-undo" maybe???
>
> What if instead of making this a feature of ``fossil diff'' it became a
> feature of ``fossil undo?''
>
> fossil undo --diff
>
Ooh, I
Clever, but awkward in my opinion; the first place to look for such a feature
would be under diff command. At least for me, that is.
My vote is for diff --from|--to undo, where 'undo' is a special tag, same as
'ckout' in different context. I think it fits in such paradigm nicely.
The person who
On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 6:07 PM, Steve Stefanovich wrote:
> Clever, but awkward in my opinion; the first place to look for such a
> feature would be under diff command. At least for me, that is.
>
> My vote is for diff --from|--to undo, where 'undo' is a special tag, same
> as 'ckout' in differen
On Sep 11, 2015, at 5:27 PM, Ron W wrote:
>
> They will ask why isn't it a small number like, for example, SVN uses.
Solution: use tags. :)
> Then they ask how do we know it's really unique? By telling them (in
> simplified terms) how it is computed, they more readily accept the need for
> su
On Sep 11, 2015, at 5:14 PM, Andy Bradford wrote:
>
> fossil undo --diff
While I admire your judo skill, that’s even worse from an exposure of
implementation detail standpoint. Also, it implies that you’re asking Fossil
to undo changes, modified in some way using diffs. Knowing nothing else,
Thus said Steve Stefanovich on Sat, 12 Sep 2015 00:07:54 -:
> The person who names branches 'undo' can be perhaps warned in the
> command help to use the hash instead.
I think Fossil should have as few reserved words in its interfaces as
possible. If it must be part of ``fossil diff
On 9/11/2015 7:11 AM, Richard Hipp wrote:
>
> "fossil diff --versus-undo" maybe???
Along the same lines, how about:
"fossil diff --updated"
The semantics being it is a diff of the things you just updated
(implicitly with respect to what they were before the update command).
-- Shal
--
Shal
On 9/11/2015 3:28 PM, Warren Young wrote:
On Sep 11, 2015, at 4:19 PM, Ross Berteig
I personally think that "diff --from undo" is the best of all the
proposals floated in this thread, and tend to assume that "undo" is
an unlikely branch or tag name.
I agree that it is unlikely to cause a confl
42 matches
Mail list logo
