Re: [fossil-users] Progress report of Fossil 2.x

On Sat, Mar 04, 2017 at 03:07:04PM +0200, Tony Papadimitriou wrote: > -Original Message- From: Warren Young > > > > (3) New repositories are initialized using SHA3 > > Maybe there should be a “fossil init --sha1” option for the > > technologically conservative. > > Or, for practical

Re: [fossil-users] Progress report of Fossil 2.x

-Original Message- From: Warren Young (3) New repositories are initialized using SHA3 Maybe there should be a “fossil init --sha1” option for the technologically conservative. Or, for practical reasons. So, I second that. For example, creating a new repo locally to be hosted by

Re: [fossil-users] Progress report of Fossil 2.x

On Mar 3, 2017, at 5:58 PM, Warren Young wrote: > > Ditto new tickets and new tech notes. Tech notes are tied to a particular checkin, aren’t they? So never mind on that one. ___ fossil-users mailing list

Re: [fossil-users] Progress report of Fossil 2.x

On Mar 3, 2017, at 5:49 PM, Ron W wrote: > > I would argue that wiki pages, ticket changes and ticket attachments have > parent artfacts. For wiki pages, it would be the most commit of that page. Okay, but what about new wiki pages? What is *their* parent? Ditto new

Re: [fossil-users] Progress report of Fossil 2.x

On Fri, Mar 3, 2017 at 1:33 PM, <fossil-users-requ...@lists.fossil-scm.org> wrote: > > Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2017 08:29:06 -0500 > From: Richard Hipp <d...@sqlite.org> > Subject: Re: [fossil-users] Progress report of Fossil 2.x > > (4) When new content is add

Re: [fossil-users] Progress report of Fossil 2.x

On Mar 3, 2017, at 6:29 AM, Richard Hipp wrote: > > (1) When creating a new check-in, use the hash algorithm (SHA1 or > SHA3) that is used by the primary parent check-in. I’m not certain what “primary” means in this context. I assume that it’s a distinction for cases where

Re: [fossil-users] Progress report of Fossil 2.x

On 3/3/17, Ramon Ribó wrote: > ​ ​ > I think it is more clear and simple a "fossil rebuild --sha3" Rebuilding does not change hashes. You cannot change the hashes, as doing so would change the name of historical check-ins. So if you have 10 years of check-in history with

Re: [fossil-users] Progress report of Fossil 2.x

It sounds ok to me ​ ​ to match the parent checkin style. However, I do not see a clear advantage to a command "fossil commit ​ ​ --sha3".I think it is more clear and simple a "fossil rebuild --sha3" RR 2017-03-03 14:29 GMT+01:00 Richard Hipp : > On 3/3/17, Ramon Ribó

Re: [fossil-users] Progress report of Fossil 2.x

On 3/3/17, Ramon Ribó wrote: > I would take a more conservative > solution: > > Version 2.1 uses SHA3 for new repositories or when actively required to do > it (with a rebuild with special options), and continue to use SHA1 for > existing repositories. How about a policy

Re: [fossil-users] Progress report of Fossil 2.x

Hello, Given the fact that this is not an urgent requirement (all of us know that SHA1 works quite well as a hash for vcs), I would take a more conservative solution: Version 2.1 uses SHA3 for new repositories or when actively required to do it (with a rebuild with special options), and continue

Re: [fossil-users] Progress report of Fossil 2.x

On Mar 1, 2017, at 3:21 PM, Tony Papadimitriou wrote: > > if I keep my own repos in SHA3 (which I'm for BTW), but I also have to > interact with 3rd party sites (like chiselapp) some of which may choose to > remain with SHA1 compatible, I would have to keep two different fossils

Re: [fossil-users] Progress report of Fossil 2.x

On 3/1/17, Tony Papadimitriou wrote: > > I believe DRH asked for feedback. And that was my feedback. Thank you. Your responses are very useful to me. -- D. Richard Hipp d...@sqlite.org ___ fossil-users mailing list

Re: [fossil-users] Progress report of Fossil 2.x

-Original Message- From: Warren Young On Mar 1, 2017, at 2:03 AM, Tony Papadimitriou wrote: My 'prediction' is that two versions will end up in a similar mess to the Python 2.7 vs Python 3.x one. [all irrelevant Python analysis removed] I was referring to the fact

Re: [fossil-users] Progress report of Fossil 2.x

On Tue, 28 Feb 2017 21:24:42 -0500 Richard Hipp wrote: > > (9) Your feedback is encouraged and appreciated. Could Fossil 2.0 change from page model to widget model? If I want to create a new page, for example a project current status, where I want to show open branchs,

Re: [fossil-users] Progress report of Fossil 2.x

In my case, Warren, I agree with you... -- Martin G. On Wed, Mar 01, 2017 at 10:24:56AM -0700, Warren Young wrote: > On Mar 1, 2017, at 2:03 AM, Tony Papadimitriou wrote: > > > > My 'prediction' is that two versions will end up in a similar mess to the > > Python 2.7 vs

Re: [fossil-users] Progress report of Fossil 2.x

On Mar 1, 2017, at 2:03 AM, Tony Papadimitriou wrote: > > My 'prediction' is that two versions will end up in a similar mess to the > Python 2.7 vs Python 3.x one. Python 3 wouldn’t run a large subset of the available Python 2 code, on purpose. Fossil 2.x will fully use Fossil

Re: [fossil-users] Progress report of Fossil 2.x

Tony, I agree with you. -- //twitter: @umgeher //xmpp: m...@umgeher.org ___ 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] Progress report of Fossil 2.x

report of Fossil 2.x Discussion of Fossil 2.x continues on the fossil-dev mailing list. I am offering this update to the broader fossil-users community to elicit feedback. (1) Moving forward, Fossil repositories will be able to name artifacts using either the legacy SHA1 hash or using a SHA3-256

[fossil-users] Progress report of Fossil 2.x

Discussion of Fossil 2.x continues on the fossil-dev mailing list. I am offering this update to the broader fossil-users community to elicit feedback. (1) Moving forward, Fossil repositories will be able to name artifacts using either the legacy SHA1 hash or using a SHA3-256 hash. Both hashes