Re: [fossil-users] Problem with: fossil revert -r xxx

On 5/10/2017 8:54 PM, Ron Aaron wrote: I tried to revert to a good revision 'xxx' using "fossil revert -r xxx" Despite the help stating "Revert all files if no file name is provided", instead fossil told me, "the --revision option does not work for the entire tree". The help also says "-r

[fossil-users] Problem with: fossil revert -r xxx

I tried to revert to a good revision 'xxx' using "fossil revert -r xxx" Despite the help stating "Revert all files if no file name is provided", instead fossil told me, "the --revision option does not work for the entire tree". This is with fossil 2.2 [81d7d3f43e] 2017-04-11 20:54:55 UTC *Ron

Re: [fossil-users] Limiting cruft in my repos

On 5/10/2017 1:12 PM, Tony Papadimitriou wrote: So, ignore ‘makefile’? *From:* Ross Berteig # ignore files without at least one dot somewhere in their name !*.* Yup. It would do that. And README, LICENSE, CHANGELOG. Not without its problems. But ignore-g

Re: [fossil-users] Limiting cruft in my repos

On 10 May 2017 at 17:05, Artur Shepilko wrote: > Not sure about the objectives the students are learning in this > course, but if it in any way relates to programming, recognizing as > to what to keep under version control is a reasonable objective on its > own. > While I might agree, and the t

Re: [fossil-users] Limiting cruft in my repos

Not sure about the objectives the students are learning in this course, but if it in any way relates to programming, recognizing as to what to keep under version control is a reasonable objective on its own. There could be valid reasons to keeping executables and other build artifacts versioned, b

Re: [fossil-users] Unversioned content for distribution

Great, I'll give that a try. On Wed, May 10, 2017 at 4:17 PM, Richard Hipp wrote: > On 5/10/17, sky5w...@gmail.com wrote: > > Cool, > > Does this behave identically if I have: > > http://localhost:8082/setup_settings > > [±] autosync //<-- ON or OFF? > > > > Yes. Unversioned content does

Re: [fossil-users] Unversioned content for distribution

On 5/10/17, sky5w...@gmail.com wrote: > Cool, > Does this behave identically if I have: > http://localhost:8082/setup_settings > [±] autosync //<-- ON or OFF? > Yes. Unversioned content does not autosync. You have to explicitly runt "fossil uv sync". -- D. Richard Hipp d...@sqlite.org

Re: [fossil-users] Limiting cruft in my repos

So, ignore ‘makefile’? From: Ross Berteig # ignore files without at least one dot somewhere in their name !*.* ___ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users

Re: [fossil-users] Unversioned content for distribution

Cool, Does this behave identically if I have: http://localhost:8082/setup_settings [±] autosync //<-- ON or OFF? Thanks. On Wed, May 10, 2017 at 9:34 AM, David Mason wrote: > Perfect! I knew it would be easy. > > Thanks > > On 10 May 2017 at 07:04, Richard Hipp wrote: > >> On 5/10/17, Da

Re: [fossil-users] Limiting cruft in my repos

On 5/10/2017 7:08 AM, David Mason wrote: I generate the initial fossil for them. The problem is that I don't control, e.g. executable names, so if they have foo.c and say `make foo` they will have foo.o which I can match, but also foo which I can't (because they might call it foox.c - and hence

Re: [fossil-users] Limiting cruft in my repos

I generate the initial fossil for them. The problem is that I don't control, e.g. executable names, so if they have foo.c and say `make foo` they will have foo.o which I can match, but also foo which I can't (because they might call it foox.c - and hence foox - instead). Because I generate the ini

Re: [fossil-users] Limiting cruft in my repos

Yes, that would work. A flag to reject binary files could work too, for all the .o and .beam files that are small but annoying. I know that wouldn't work perfectly as the binary detection is heuristic, but would be very convenient. Actually a flag that caused `fossil add` and `fossil addremove` t

Re: [fossil-users] Limiting cruft in my repos

Thus said David Mason on Wed, 10 May 2017 01:07:22 -0400: > If the students were very disciplined, they would assiduously edit > ignore-glob to prevent this. But if there is one thing that students > (en-mass) are not, it's disciplined! Do students generate their own Fossil, or is the Fos

Re: [fossil-users] Unversioned content for distribution

Perfect! I knew it would be easy. Thanks On 10 May 2017 at 07:04, Richard Hipp wrote: > On 5/10/17, David Mason wrote: > > I have a fossil repo and in it I have a file foo.js that is generated by > my > > build process - so I don't want it versioned. But I *do* want it > > distributed, and wan

Re: [fossil-users] Minor bug with SEARCH command

2017-05-10 15:17 GMT+02:00 Tony Papadimitriou: > Now, if the same command is given with the –R option to the same repo (e.g., > FOSSIL SEA –R repo.fossil) the results are different, and somewhat random. Indeed! Well, a search without an argument seems little useful, so I would suggest the followi

[fossil-users] Minor bug with SEARCH command

(Tested under Win7) With FOSSIL SEA from within an open repository up to 1000 lines are printed by default. Seems OK. Now, if the same command is given with the –R option to the same repo (e.g., FOSSIL SEA –R repo.fossil) the results are different, and somewhat random. If an empty string is ex

Re: [fossil-users] Limiting cruft in my repos

On 5/10/17, David Mason wrote: > I've described before how I use fossil to manage student assignment > submissions in courses I teach. > > A perennial problem is that the students commit binary executables, .o > files, and the like. Theses change every build so I have dozens of versions > of poten

Re: [fossil-users] Unversioned content for distribution

On 5/10/17, David Mason wrote: > I have a fossil repo and in it I have a file foo.js that is generated by my > build process - so I don't want it versioned. But I *do* want it > distributed, and want it referencable from foo.html - which *is* versioned. > foo.html and foo.js are *not* served by fo