Re: [fossil-users] Bookmarks (Re: git->fossil->git does not, obtain the same commit hashes.)

On 6/5/2014 1:20 AM, Richard Hipp wrote: On Wed, Jun 4, 2014 at 12:53 PM, B Harder wrote: >Indeed, non-propagating tags are also "checkout-able" items. > >What am I missing about bookmarks that we can't already enjoy w/ tags, >outside of new syntax ? > Here's something that you get for free

Re: [fossil-users] Bookmarks (Re: git->fossil->git does not obtain the same commit hashes.)

Scott Robison wrote: On Wed, Jun 4, 2014 at 1:56 PM, Richard Hipp > wrote: On Wed, Jun 4, 2014 at 3:27 PM, Scott Robison mailto:sc...@casaderobison.com>> wrote: I really want to steal this in tweet form: "To get to a place where you understand Gi

Re: [fossil-users] Bookmarks (Re: git->fossil->git does not obtain the same commit hashes.)

On Wed, Jun 4, 2014 at 1:56 PM, Richard Hipp wrote: > On Wed, Jun 4, 2014 at 3:27 PM, Scott Robison > wrote: > >> I really want to steal this in tweet form: >> >> "To get to a place where you understand Git's design takes 99x more >> effort than 99% of software. Once you get to that point it's w

Re: [fossil-users] Bookmarks (Re: git->fossil->git does not obtain the same commit hashes.)

On Wed, Jun 4, 2014 at 3:27 PM, Scott Robison wrote: > I really want to steal this in tweet form: > > "To get to a place where you understand Git's design takes 99x more effort > than 99% of software. Once you get to that point it's wonderful!" > > Does that quote belong on this page: http://www.

Re: [fossil-users] Bookmarks (Re: git->fossil->git does not obtain the same commit hashes.)

On Wed, Jun 4, 2014 at 1:29 PM, Joel Bruick wrote: > Consider it yours. > Thanks. Final form: OH: To understand Git's design takes 99x more effort than 99% of software. Once you get to that point it's wonderful! // Too true! Curse the 140 character limit! :) -- Scott Robison

Re: [fossil-users] Bookmarks (Re: git->fossil->git does not obtain the same commit hashes.)

Scott Robison wrote: On Wed, Jun 4, 2014 at 12:56 PM, Joel Bruick > wrote: I think Git is a great, powerful, and flexible tool that actually has a much simpler design than it initially appears. But to get to a place where you actually understand that design

Re: [fossil-users] Bookmarks (Re: git->fossil->git does not obtain the same commit hashes.)

On Wed, Jun 4, 2014 at 12:56 PM, Joel Bruick wrote: > > I think Git is a great, powerful, and flexible tool that actually has a > much simpler design than it initially appears. But to get to a place where > you actually understand that design (and, thus, understand Git), takes > about 99x more ef

Re: [fossil-users] Bookmarks (Re: git->fossil->git does not obtain the same commit hashes.)

Nico Williams wrote: On Wed, Jun 4, 2014 at 9:07 AM, Stephan Beal wrote: On Wed, Jun 4, 2014 at 12:02 AM, Nico Williams wrote: Mercurial too had "heavy-duty" branches only, then they added "bookmarks" that are very similar to git branches. Since a "bookmark" is just a symbolic name for a comm

Re: [fossil-users] Bookmarks (Re: git->fossil->git does not obtain the same commit hashes.)

On Wed, Jun 4, 2014 at 2:07 PM, Nico Williams wrote: > On Wed, Jun 4, 2014 at 12:30 PM, Stephan Beal > wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 4, 2014 at 7:25 PM, Nico Williams > wrote: > >> > >> To be truly useful it has to be possible to [selectively] push/pull > >> bookmarks. > > > > > > If that's the case t

Re: [fossil-users] Bookmarks (Re: git->fossil->git does not obtain the same commit hashes.)

On Wed, Jun 4, 2014 at 8:07 PM, Nico Williams wrote: > - when you checkout a tag and then commit something, the tag doesn't > move with the HEAD of your workspace -- you're in detached HEAD mode > when you checkout a tag > > - when you checkout a branch and you commit something, the branch's >

Re: [fossil-users] Bookmarks (Re: git->fossil->git does not obtain the same commit hashes.)

On Wed, Jun 4, 2014 at 12:30 PM, Stephan Beal wrote: > On Wed, Jun 4, 2014 at 7:25 PM, Nico Williams wrote: >> >> To be truly useful it has to be possible to [selectively] push/pull >> bookmarks. > > > If that's the case then they really provide no benefits over propagating > tags (which are vers

Re: [fossil-users] Bookmarks (Re: git->fossil->git does not obtain the same commit hashes.)

On Wed, Jun 4, 2014 at 12:02 PM, Richard Hipp wrote: > On Wed, Jun 4, 2014 at 12:53 PM, B Harder wrote: >> >> Indeed, non-propagating tags are also "checkout-able" items. >> >> What am I missing about bookmarks that we can't already enjoy w/ tags, >> outside of new syntax ? > > Here's something t

Re: [fossil-users] Bookmarks (Re: git->fossil->git does not obtain the same commit hashes.)

On Wed, Jun 4, 2014 at 12:24 PM, Stephan Beal wrote: > In the core, basically the only addition would be adding another block to > symbolic_name_to_rid(), which simply expands the "..." part from "bk:..." > from the bookmark list, then runs that result through through > symbolic_name_to_rid(). Tha

Re: [fossil-users] Bookmarks (Re: git->fossil->git does not obtain the same commit hashes.)

On Wed, Jun 4, 2014 at 11:53 AM, B Harder wrote: > Indeed, non-propagating tags are also "checkout-able" items. > > What am I missing about bookmarks that we can't already enjoy w/ tags, > outside of new syntax ? In git, tags and branches are both very light-weight bookmark-like concepts. The di

Re: [fossil-users] Bookmarks (Re: git->fossil->git does not obtain the same commit hashes.)

On Wed, Jun 4, 2014 at 7:25 PM, Nico Williams wrote: > To be truly useful it has to be possible to [selectively] push/pull > bookmarks. > If that's the case then they really provide no benefits over propagating tags (which are versioned), but note that Fossil cannot selectively push/pull with th

Re: [fossil-users] Bookmarks (Re: git->fossil->git does not obtain the same commit hashes.)

On Wed, Jun 4, 2014 at 11:15 AM, Stephan Beal wrote: > On Wed, Jun 4, 2014 at 6:03 PM, Nico Williams wrote: >> On Wed, Jun 4, 2014 at 9:07 AM, Stephan Beal >> wrote: >> > Bookmarks. That's a nice idea, actually. Added to my TODO list. > > i was thinking more generically: > > f bookmark add blah

Re: [fossil-users] Bookmarks (Re: git->fossil->git does not obtain the same commit hashes.)

On Wed, Jun 4, 2014 at 7:21 PM, B Harder wrote: > sb> fossil bk add xp experimental:2011-06-04 > > I can imagine this being useful at least occasionally. I'm still > loathe to include it in core fossil, but it'd be a great task for a > little tool. > In the core, basically the only addition woul

Re: [fossil-users] Bookmarks (Re: git->fossil->git does not obtain the same commit hashes.)

On Wed, Jun 4, 2014 at 7:16 PM, B Harder wrote: > I'm shaking my head, wondering "why?" My current mental image is: > http://perl-begin.org/humour/perl6_perl_6_cover_lg.jpg Reminds me of the on-on-on-oh-so-nausiatingly-ongoing JSON standardization efforts on the IETF mailing lists ;). But yeah,

Re: [fossil-users] Bookmarks (Re: git->fossil->git does not obtain the same commit hashes.)

sb> fossil bk add xp experimental:2011-06-04 I can imagine this being useful at least occasionally. I'm still loathe to include it in core fossil, but it'd be a great task for a little tool. -bch On 6/4/14, B Harder wrote: > Because the internet can be a poor medium to express emotional intent

Re: [fossil-users] Bookmarks (Re: git->fossil->git does not obtain the same commit hashes.)

Because the internet can be a poor medium to express emotional intent, let me preface this with: Stephan, you know I have the utmost respect for your coding chops, and we _mostly_ fall in line wrt design philosophy. That said: I'm shaking my head, wondering "why?" My current mental image is: http:

Re: [fossil-users] Bookmarks (Re: git->fossil->git does not obtain the same commit hashes.)

On Wed, Jun 4, 2014 at 7:02 PM, Richard Hipp wrote: > On Wed, Jun 4, 2014 at 12:53 PM, B Harder wrote: > >> Indeed, non-propagating tags are also "checkout-able" items. >> >> What am I missing about bookmarks that we can't already enjoy w/ tags, >> outside of new syntax ? >> > > Similarly, if yo

Re: [fossil-users] Bookmarks (Re: git->fossil->git does not obtain the same commit hashes.)

On Wed, Jun 4, 2014 at 6:53 PM, B Harder wrote: > Indeed, non-propagating tags are also "checkout-able" items. > > What am I missing about bookmarks that we can't already enjoy w/ tags, > outside of new syntax ? > i envision them as being "lightweight," i.e. local, non-versioned. They'd just be

Re: [fossil-users] Bookmarks (Re: git->fossil->git does not obtain the same commit hashes.)

On Wed, Jun 4, 2014 at 12:53 PM, B Harder wrote: > Indeed, non-propagating tags are also "checkout-able" items. > > What am I missing about bookmarks that we can't already enjoy w/ tags, > outside of new syntax ? > Here's something that you get for free with Fossil's model that you can't get wit

Re: [fossil-users] Bookmarks (Re: git->fossil->git does not obtain the same commit hashes.)

Indeed, non-propagating tags are also "checkout-able" items. What am I missing about bookmarks that we can't already enjoy w/ tags, outside of new syntax ? -bch On 6/4/14, Richard Hipp wrote: > On Wed, Jun 4, 2014 at 12:03 PM, Nico Williams > wrote: > >> On Wed, Jun 4, 2014 at 9:07 AM, Stepha

Re: [fossil-users] Bookmarks (Re: git->fossil->git does not obtain the same commit hashes.)

On Wed, Jun 4, 2014 at 12:03 PM, Nico Williams wrote: > On Wed, Jun 4, 2014 at 9:07 AM, Stephan Beal > wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 4, 2014 at 12:02 AM, Nico Williams > > wrote: > >> Mercurial too had "heavy-duty" branches only, then they added > >> "bookmarks" that are very similar to git branches.

Re: [fossil-users] Bookmarks (Re: git->fossil->git does not obtain the same commit hashes.)

On Wed, Jun 4, 2014 at 6:15 PM, Stephan Beal wrote: > f merge bk:trunk > typo, but you get the idea. -- - stephan beal http://wanderinghorse.net/home/stephan/ http://gplus.to/sgbeal "Freedom is sloppy. But since tyranny's the only guaranteed byproduct of those who insist on a perfect world

Re: [fossil-users] Bookmarks (Re: git->fossil->git does not obtain the same commit hashes.)

On Wed, Jun 4, 2014 at 6:03 PM, Nico Williams wrote: > On Wed, Jun 4, 2014 at 9:07 AM, Stephan Beal > wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 4, 2014 at 12:02 AM, Nico Williams > > wrote: > >> Mercurial too had "heavy-duty" branches only, then they added > >> "bookmarks" that are very similar to git branches.

[fossil-users] Bookmarks (Re: git->fossil->git does not obtain the same commit hashes.)

On Wed, Jun 4, 2014 at 9:07 AM, Stephan Beal wrote: > On Wed, Jun 4, 2014 at 12:02 AM, Nico Williams > wrote: >> Mercurial too had "heavy-duty" branches only, then they added >> "bookmarks" that are very similar to git branches. Since a "bookmark" >> is just a symbolic name for a commit... this