Re: [fossil-users] Bitrot defense?

2016-07-05 Thread Warren Young
On Jul 5, 2016, at 4:55 PM, Paul Hammant wrote: > > somehow Btrfs or ZFS know Fossil well enough to repair a small section of a > moving target? Those filesystems don’t need to know Fossil’s internals at all. Self-repair only requires checksums and redundancy. If one checksum doesn’t match

Re: [fossil-users] Bitrot defense?

2016-07-05 Thread Paul Hammant
> > > Fossil *could* be modified to self-repair. It has the info it needs to do > so. > > But then, why bother in a world where you have things like ZFS, which can > protect not only your Fossil repos, but also everything else you hold dear? > So say the's an old version of a PNG that's corrupt i

Re: [fossil-users] Release 1.35 checksums?

2016-07-05 Thread jungle Boogie
On 1 July 2016 at 09:39, Warren Young wrote: > If you’re expecting the checksum to protect you against someone hacking the > web site and uploading malware, they can modify the checksums on the web site > at the same time. Absolutely. As a small request, maybe when Dr. Hipp makes a release, he

Re: [fossil-users] Need help /tips SQLITE_CONSTRAINT: abort at 42

2016-07-05 Thread Richard Hipp
Can I get access to your repository for debugging purposes? On 7/5/16, Tillmann Basien wrote: > my fossil repository has a branch which cannot be merged into another one. > > Fossil: This is fossil version 1.35 [3aa86af6aa] 2016-06-14 11:10:39 UTC > I already did fossil rebuild. > > This is the l

[fossil-users] Need help /tips SQLITE_CONSTRAINT: abort at 42

2016-07-05 Thread Tillmann Basien
my fossil repository has a branch which cannot be merged into another one. Fossil: This is fossil version 1.35 [3aa86af6aa] 2016-06-14 11:10:39 UTC I already did fossil rebuild. This is the last line after: fossil merge -n *SQLITE_CONSTRAINT: abort at 42 in [INSERT INTO vfile(vid,chnged,del

Re: [fossil-users] [TCLCORE] FYI - tcl core - unintended fork

2016-07-05 Thread Jan Nijtmans
2016-07-05 16:18 GMT+02:00 Jan Nijtmans: > But there is currently a bug in fossil which shows > a closed fork with an additional arrow going up. Now I don't > have an example any more showing this ;-( Never mind ... found it:

Re: [fossil-users] [TCLCORE] FYI - tcl core - unintended fork

2016-07-05 Thread Jan Nijtmans
2016-07-05 15:43 GMT+02:00 Donal K. Fellows: > It's corrected now. Yes, thanks!But there is currently a bug in fossil which shows a closed fork with an additional arrow going up. Now I don't have an example any more showing this ;-( It appears that the fossil bug was introduced with this