Thus said David Vines on Tue, 05 Jan 2016 20:08:40 +:
> And what I read (and was presumably misled by) was the help text on
> fossil publish which says "can be used (for example) to convert a
> private branch into a public branch."
If I'm not mistaken, the ``fossil publish'' command
On 05/01/2016 19:53, Richard Hipp wrote:
On 1/5/16, bch wrote:
What's incorrect, the documentation, or the implementation ?
Both, IIRC. I think you can convert a private branch to public by
cancelling the "private" tag. But I don't think that feature is
completely operational right now.
Bu
On 1/5/16, bch wrote:
> What's incorrect, the documentation, or the implementation ?
Both, IIRC. I think you can convert a private branch to public by
cancelling the "private" tag. But I don't think that feature is
completely operational right now.
But it has been over a year since I worked on
What's incorrect, the documentation, or the implementation ?
>From private.wiki:
After additional work, one might desire to publish the changes associated
with a private branch. The usual way to do this is to merge those
changes into a public branch. For example:
fossil update trunk
fossil me
On 1/5/16, bch wrote:
> I just did another pull, and the branch tags showed up, so @drh, I
> think your rebuild helped somewhat. Now to find out how the repo got
> into it's "broken" state in the first place.
>
The rebuild didn't help. It was my manual DELETE of the offending
entry in the PRIVAT
I just did another pull, and the branch tags showed up, so @drh, I
think your rebuild helped somewhat. Now to find out how the repo got
into it's "broken" state in the first place.
On 1/5/16, bch wrote:
> On 1/5/16, Richard Hipp wrote:
>> On 1/5/16, Richard Hipp wrote:
>>> On 1/5/16, David Vine
On 1/5/16, Richard Hipp wrote:
> On 1/5/16, Richard Hipp wrote:
>> On 1/5/16, David Vines wrote:
>>>
>>> One curious aspect I do see is that the web ui has the annotation of
>>> "unpublished" against the creation of the branch. I did start by have a
>>> private branch which I then published - I
Here's what I see on my *local* machine (see also attached ffox screenshot):
strathcona$ fossil timel
=== 2016-01-05 ===
10:12:56 [d4dc7ad8dc] [c541b6e734] Remove unintended white space
change in wiki.c (user: dave.vines)
08:40:09 [64a5ef28e5] [c541b6e734] Move attachment command from wiki.c
to at
On 1/5/16, Richard Hipp wrote:
> On 1/5/16, David Vines wrote:
>>
>> One curious aspect I do see is that the web ui has the annotation of
>> "unpublished" against the creation of the branch. I did start by have a
>> private branch which I then published - I do wonder if this might be
>> part of t
Hi Dave.
Don't fret! I'm not attributing this to malice or blaming -you-, but
something does look strange to me (on my local copy of the repo).
Cheers,
-bch
On 1/5/16, David Vines wrote:
> On 05/01/2016 18:53, bch wrote:
>> How did we end up w/ dave.vines' completely untagged (no branch)
>> c
On 1/5/16, David Vines wrote:
>
> One curious aspect I do see is that the web ui has the annotation of
> "unpublished" against the creation of the branch. I did start by have a
> private branch which I then published - I do wonder if this might be
> part of the problem.
>
There was a "private" ta
On 05/01/2016 18:53, bch wrote:
How did we end up w/ dave.vines' completely untagged (no branch)
commits in the repository (or am I misreading what these are?) ?
ref:
/info/b208bf75777604dc
/timeline?u=dave.vines&c=2016-01-05+10%3A12%3A56&nd&n=200
If I've messed this up, I do most humbly
How did we end up w/ dave.vines' completely untagged (no branch)
commits in the repository (or am I misreading what these are?) ?
ref:
/info/b208bf75777604dc
/timeline?u=dave.vines&c=2016-01-05+10%3A12%3A56&nd&n=200
___
fossil-users mailing list
foss
On 05/01/16 09:14, Steve Stefanovich wrote:
[---]
>>Is this not sufficient for your needs? I'm not completely opposed to
>> implementing what you're asking for, but if it can already be done without
>> adding a "within a checkout" special case, I would prefer to leave it as it
>> is.
>
> I d
> > Would it be too difficult to put the branch tag (i.e the tag with asterisk
> > from
> 'fossil br li' output) in the first line of manifest.tags?
>
>It probably wouldn't, but I've been trying to keep the code agnostic with
> regards to being used in a checkout or not. The "current branch
15 matches
Mail list logo
