On Fri, Sep 5, 2014 at 4:09 PM, wrote:
> Interesting, but I am unsuccessful attempting to read any of what you post?
My apologies for making my post short and inscrutable.
> Can you provide a url directly to 'fx shun add' documentation?
> Or do I have to install this to become Armed & Dangerous
Interesting, but I am unsuccessful attempting to read any of what you post?
Can you provide a url directly to 'fx shun add' documentation?
Or do I have to install this to become Armed & Dangerous? :)
On Fri, Sep 5, 2014 at 4:39 PM, Andreas Kupries
wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 5, 2014 at 1:24 PM, wrot
On Fri, Sep 5, 2014 at 3:36 PM, Matt Welland wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 5, 2014 at 12:10 PM, Ron W wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Sep 5, 2014 at 12:57 PM, Gour wrote:
>>
>>> I use lto-2 tapes, but the point is that Fossil keeps project's history
>>> since the very beginning. :-)
>>
>>
>> Still need to keep the
On Fri, Sep 5, 2014 at 3:36 PM, Matt Welland wrote:
> I'd like support for moving nodes around a branch - but I want it to
> produce new branches. I.e. it is an additive process, not a lossy one. I
> had one really horrible merge where 100's of lines of code were
> conflicting. By merging node by
On Fri, Sep 5, 2014 at 1:24 PM, wrote:
> I asked about an automated shun, but shun is not available except through
> ui. :(
http://core.tcl.tk/akupries/fx/index
fx help ...
Advanced
Armed & Dangerous
Shunning
fx shun add ... Shun artifacts
fx shun
Repo backups saved me in this scenario. A developer did a fossil add *.* by
mistake and committed. Well, that bloated our repo size tenfold. We knew
quickly because push/pulls were taking too long. A query to this mailing
list mentioned shun's and rebuilds, but I had already made some poor hacks
to
On 9/5/2014 13:36, Matt Welland wrote:
On Fri, Sep 5, 2014 at 12:10 PM, Ron W mailto:ronw.m...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Still need to keep the Fossil repo backed up.
Is there really a need for a backup if you have offsite fossils to which
you regularly sync?
Probably not.
I do it anyway becaus
On Fri, Sep 5, 2014 at 12:10 PM, Ron W wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 5, 2014 at 12:57 PM, Gour wrote:
>
>> I use lto-2 tapes, but the point is that Fossil keeps project's history
>> since the very beginning. :-)
>
>
> Still need to keep the Fossil repo backed up.
>
Is there really a need for a backup i
On Fri, 5 Sep 2014 15:10:31 -0400
Ron W wrote:
> It is possible to "organize" "history" in Fossil by doing your work on
> private branches, then creating "organized" views in your work space
> and committing those to trunk and/or release branches.
There is one thing I'd like to see in Fossil -
On Fri, Sep 5, 2014 at 12:57 PM, Gour wrote:
> I use lto-2 tapes, but the point is that Fossil keeps project's history
> since the very beginning. :-)
Still need to keep the Fossil repo backed up.
But yes, I like that Fossil is designed to preserve the history instead of
being used as a tool
FYI the Google translation service is reporting that the site is
compromised in some way. So no translation at the moment, and I would
probably advise extreme caution loading the original site even of you can
read Russian.
Sorry for top post, sent from phone.
SDR
On Sep 5, 2014 5:52 AM, "Richard
On Fri, 5 Sep 2014 12:34:39 -0400
Ron W wrote:
> Depends on who is maintaining the backups.
[...]
> For my personal use, I have 2 growing stacks of hard drives. As I fill
> the current pair, I store them in 2 different heat and water resistant
> document boxes in opposite corners of my basement
On Fri, Sep 5, 2014 at 10:55 AM, Gour wrote:
> On Fri, 5 Sep 2014 10:48:11 -0400
> Ron W wrote:
> > The intermediate to advanced git users I've talked with seem to take
> > the position that "version control is not a backup" means that
> > "history is in the back ups".
>
> I just wonder how 'lon
On Fri, 5 Sep 2014 10:48:11 -0400
Ron W wrote:
> The intermediate to advanced git users I've talked with seem to take
> the position that "version control is not a backup" means that
> "history is in the back ups".
I just wonder how 'long' is the usual "backup history"...
Sincerely,
Gour
--
On Fri, Sep 5, 2014 at 7:51 AM, Richard Hipp wrote:
> My summary: Some people "get it" and understand why Fossil is an
> interesting idea. Others (perhaps due to different backgrounds or work
> styles or expectations) cannot seem to grasp why anyone would ever consider
> using Fossil.
>
The in
This article is about fossil usage only. The author say nothing about how
cool and rock solid fossil is. I expected to see some facts from
fossil-v-git.wiki. Really upset with the article as it seems to only
confuse Russian community.
On Fri, Sep 5, 2014 at 3:51 PM, Richard Hipp wrote:
> There
On Fri, Sep 5, 2014 at 1:51 PM, Richard Hipp wrote:
> cannot seem to grasp why anyone would ever consider using Fossil.
>
They certainly will after they've lost enough data. If not, their loss.
- stephan beal
http://wanderinghorse.net/home/stephan/
http://gplus.to/sgbeal
"Freedom is sloppy.
There seems to be a spirited debate on the relative merits of Fossil and
Git going on at the Russian-language website:
http://habrahabr.ru/post/235369/
Machine translation here:
https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=ru&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fhabrahabr.ru%2Fpost%2F235369%2F
My summa
18 matches
Mail list logo
