Ron Wilson writes:
> Thinking about this, I am wondering what would happen if:
> 1. clone the main repo
> 2. Mark the root of the clone "private", making the whole clone private
> 3. Start a branch for the local changes and mark that branch not private
> 4. Commit changes to the new branch
> 5. C
On Thu, Jun 5, 2014 at 6:38 PM, B Harder wrote:
>
> On Jun 5, 2014 10:55 AM, "Richard Hipp" wrote:
> >
> > If you included all the artifacts that you need, that would immediately
> make the subrepo larger than you might expect. Certainly the subrepo would
> be smaller if you only included artif
On Jun 5, 2014 10:55 AM, "Richard Hipp" wrote:
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jun 5, 2014 at 1:37 PM, Andy Bradford
wrote:
>>
>> Thus said Warren Young on Thu, 05 Jun 2014 09:25:39 -0600:
>>
>> > A contribution from an untrusted outsider needs to be checked
>> > carefully before it is committed to th
, June 05, 2014 4:14 PM
To: Fossil SCM user's discussion
Subject: Re: [fossil-users] Outside contribution feature
Suppose you had the ability to create a "sub-repository" - a kind of clone of a
full fossil repo but that only contains a small subset of the check-ins (and/or
wiki and ti
On 6/5/2014 11:54, Richard Hipp wrote:
But maybe there should be an open to the "fossil submit" or "fossil
subrepo" command (whatever it ends up being called) so that you can
specify either a dependent or an independent subrepository.
Doesn't the outside developer already have a self-containe
On Thu, Jun 5, 2014 at 1:37 PM, Andy Bradford
wrote:
> Thus said Warren Young on Thu, 05 Jun 2014 09:25:39 -0600:
>
> > A contribution from an untrusted outsider needs to be checked
> > carefully before it is committed to the master repo.
>
> Certainly.
>
> fossil open subrepo.fossil
> #
Thus said Warren Young on Thu, 05 Jun 2014 09:25:39 -0600:
> A contribution from an untrusted outsider needs to be checked
> carefully before it is committed to the master repo.
Certainly.
fossil open subrepo.fossil
# inspect
fossil ui subrepo.fossil
# inspect
I'm not sure how many art
On 6/5/2014 09:18, Andy Bradford wrote:
fossil pull subrepo.fossil -R project.fossil
A contribution from an untrusted outsider needs to be checked carefully
before it is committed to the master repo.
___
fossil-users mailing list
fossil-users@lists
Thus said Richard Hipp on Thu, 05 Jun 2014 09:14:17 -0400:
> Suppose you had the ability to create a "sub-repository" - a kind of
> clone of a full fossil repo but that only contains a small subset of
> the check-ins (and/or wiki and tickets, etc.) A sub-repository would
> not even be self-
Thus said Warren Young on Thu, 05 Jun 2014 04:06:09 -0600:
> I realize implementing all this will take a fair bit of work. When I
> describe it as simple, I mean that I don't see that it changes a lot
> about how Fossil works internally.
I wonder if it could start out as an external tool w
On 6/5/2014 07:14, Richard Hipp wrote:
Suppose you had the ability to create a "sub-repository"
That was the idea, yes.
A sub-repository would not
even be self-complete: It would only contain artifacts for the file
that changed in the check-ins that it contains
I expected that limitation a
Suppose you had the ability to create a "sub-repository" - a kind of clone
of a full fossil repo but that only contains a small subset of the
check-ins (and/or wiki and tickets, etc.) A sub-repository would not even
be self-complete: It would only contain artifacts for the file that
changed in th
On 6/5/2014 04:35, Kevin Martin wrote:
2) Get them to email you the clone
My Fossil DB file is currently only 1.4M, but that's only because I
didn't bother importing the previous 10 years of history into it. If I
had chosen to do that, I expect the file would be bigger than the 10-20
MB me
On 5 Jun 2014, at 02:24, Warren Young wrote:
> The thing is, a unified diff cannot express all the information Fossil knows:
> file moves/renames/deletions, commit comments, the difference between a
> changeset and a monolithic patch, the point in the revision history the diff
> was made agai
On 6/5/2014 01:51, j. van den hoff wrote:
what _is_ missing is the GitHub layer
I wish to do without that layer. I like Fossil the way it is: simple to
use, yet powerful. I like being able to host my Fossil repo on my own
server.
Perhaps you're getting hung up on the fact that I describe
On Thu, 05 Jun 2014 03:24:10 +0200, Warren Young
wrote:
As far as I can tell, Fossil offers two ways to allow outsiders to
submit changes to an open source software project:
1. Give them Develop privs
2. Ask them to "fossil diff" and mail you a patch file
In my open source projec
As far as I can tell, Fossil offers two ways to allow outsiders to
submit changes to an open source software project:
1. Give them Develop privs
2. Ask them to "fossil diff" and mail you a patch file
In my open source project, I only give repo checkin privileges to
contributors who have
17 matches
Mail list logo
