On 4 July 2015 at 10:03, Andy Bradford wrote:
> Thus said Stephan Beal on Sat, 04 Jul 2015 18:22:35 +0200:
>
>> The more i think about it, the more i like the name 'amend'.
>
> Yes, I'm starting to agree, amend may be the winner. Anyone else have an
> opinion.
>
No complaints from me!
> Thanks,
Thus said Stephan Beal on Sat, 04 Jul 2015 18:22:35 +0200:
> The more i think about it, the more i like the name 'amend'.
Yes, I'm starting to agree, amend may be the winner. Anyone else have an
opinion.
Thanks,
Andy
--
TAI64 timestamp: 400055981204
__
On Sat, Jul 4, 2015 at 6:18 PM, Andy Bradford
wrote:
> Thus said Stephan Beal on Sat, 04 Jul 2015 09:56:42 +0200:
>
> > The name 'edit' seems kinda... appropriate but potentially confusing,
> > as it initially (to me) sounds like it's going to start $EDITOR.
>
> Yeah, I had similar reserves abo
Thus said Stephan Beal on Sat, 04 Jul 2015 09:56:42 +0200:
> The name 'edit' seems kinda... appropriate but potentially confusing,
> as it initially (to me) sounds like it's going to start $EDITOR.
Yeah, I had similar reserves about using that name, but nothing better
came to mind. I thought a
On Sat, Jul 4, 2015 at 9:24 AM, Andy Bradford
wrote:
> Yes, it took a bit longer to get into it than I expected, but an intial
> implementation has finally been committed:
>
> http://www.fossil-scm.org/index.html/info/b9e0d72e7e6da002
>
> It could use another set of eyes and also needs some tes
Thus said jungle Boogie on Mon, 22 Jun 2015 23:04:06 -0700:
> Do you think you'll be implementing the new commands?
Yes, it took a bit longer to get into it than I expected, but an intial
implementation has finally been committed:
http://www.fossil-scm.org/index.html/info/b9e0d72e7e6da002
It c
On 28 May 2015 at 16:56, Andy Bradford wrote:
> What if instead of a new addition to ``fossil branch'' Fossil had a new
> command ``fossil edit'' which would allow one to edit a checkin similar
> to the UI? e.g. add a tag, change the comment, the date, the color of
> the branch, etc...?
Do
Hi Andy,
On 29 May 2015 at 07:45, Andy Bradford wrote:
> Anyone else have an opinion on whether or not ``fossil edit'' should
> exist?
I think it's a good idea as it will support additional edit commands
that we don't yet know about.
--
---
inum: 883510009027723
sip: jungleboo...@sip2s
On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 10:45 AM, Andy Bradford
wrote:
> Thus said Luca Ferrari on Fri, 29 May 2015 13:59:17 +0200:
>
> > But if I could say, the option "newbranch" does not look good at me,
> > since it a little too long.
>
> Fossil can have both long and short names for a given option,
Thus said Luca Ferrari on Fri, 29 May 2015 13:59:17 +0200:
> But if I could say, the option "newbranch" does not look good at me,
> since it a little too long.
Fossil can have both long and short names for a given option, but
perhaps --newbranch is too long. What about just --branch?
An
On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 7:59 AM, Luca Ferrari wrote:
> On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 1:56 AM, Andy Bradford
> wrote:
> > fossil edit UUID ?OPTIONS?
>
> I'll second that!
> But if I could say, the option "newbranch" does not look good at me,
> since it a little too long. Coming from git I'm used to a s
On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 1:56 AM, Andy Bradford wrote:
> fossil edit UUID ?OPTIONS?
I'll second that!
But if I could say, the option "newbranch" does not look good at me,
since it a little too long. Coming from git I'm used to a short
command line, while fossil tend to be quite verbose commands.
B
Thus said Richard Hipp on Thu, 28 May 2015 12:31:06 -0400:
> Not strictly true, but true enough in practice. Perhaps it would be
> worthwhile to add a new command-line way of moving a check-in to a new
> branch. Suggested syntax, anyone?
What if instead of a new addition to ``fossil branch''
On Thu, 28 May 2015 23:29:14 +0200, j. van den hoff
wrote:
On Thu, 28 May 2015 23:14:30 +0200, Ron W wrote:
On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 5:09 PM, j. van den hoff
wrote:
On Thu, 28 May 2015 22:47:32 +0200, Ron W wrote:
"graft" ?
used by mercurial for our `merge --cherrypick'. I belie
On Thu, 28 May 2015 22:21:19 +0200, Ron W wrote:
On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 2:56 PM, Andy Bradford
wrote:
So perhaps something similar like:
fossil branch mv BRANCH-NAME BASIS
I think "fossil branch mv BASIS BRANCH-NAME" is more intuitive (also
consistent with "fossil mv OLDNAME NEWNAME")
On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 1:50 PM, Andy Bradford
wrote:
>
> It is possible. I've done it. It just takes a strong understanding of
> how propagating tags works and requires multiple commands with just the
> right types of tags. There is not yet a single command that will do
> this, so you
On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 2:56 PM, Andy Bradford
wrote:
>
>
> So perhaps something similar like:
>
> fossil branch mv BRANCH-NAME BASIS
I think "fossil branch mv BASIS BRANCH-NAME" is more intuitive (also
consistent with "fossil mv OLDNAME NEWNAME")
___
Thus said Richard Hipp on Thu, 28 May 2015 12:31:06 -0400:
> Not strictly true, but true enough in practice. Perhaps it would be
> worthwhile to add a new command-line way of moving a check-in to a new
> branch. Suggested syntax, anyone?
``fossil branch new'' almost does what we want but it ac
Thus said Ron W on Thu, 28 May 2015 11:43:07 -0400:
> fossil tag cancel --raw 'branch' 53c9207df8 ramo
> fossil tag cancel --raw sym-trunk 53c9207df8
> fossil tag add --raw --propagate 'branch' 53c9207df8 ramo
> fossil tag add --raw --propagate 'sym-ramo' 53c9207df8
Yes, th
Thus said paul on Thu, 28 May 2015 16:57:57 +0100:
> I'm don't think it's possible to use the command line for this.
It is possible. I've done it. It just takes a strong understanding of
how propagating tags works and requires multiple commands with just the
right types of tags. There is no
On 5/28/15, paul wrote:
> On 28/05/15 17:31, Richard Hipp wrote:
>> Not strictly true, but true enough in practice. Perhaps it would be
>> worthwhile to add a new command-line way of moving a check-in to a new
>> branch. Suggested syntax, anyone?
>
> I wanted to do it through a script, rather than
On 28/05/15 17:31, Richard Hipp wrote:
Not strictly true, but true enough in practice. Perhaps it would be
worthwhile to add a new command-line way of moving a check-in to a new
branch. Suggested syntax, anyone?
I wanted to do it through a script, rather than typing commands
manually. When y
On 5/28/15, paul wrote:
>
> After not being able to get it to work, and with Richard's response, I
> came to the conclusion you can only do it via the GUI.
>
Not strictly true, but true enough in practice. Perhaps it would be
worthwhile to add a new command-line way of moving a check-in to a new
I'm don't think it's possible to use the command line for this. I posted
a similar question recently, see here:
http://www.mail-archive.com/fossil-users%40lists.fossil-scm.org/msg20431.html
After not being able to get it to work, and with Richard's response, I
came to the conclusion you can
On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 8:31 AM, Luca Ferrari wrote:
> On Tue, May 26, 2015 at 6:14 PM, Ron W wrote:
> > As I understand it, you need to add 2 tags: "branch=mybranch" and
> > "sym-mybranch"
>
> Uhm..I've done a few experiments and apparently the following is not
> having any effect:
>
> % fossil
On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 3:26 PM, Richard Hipp wrote:
> Use the web interface. Visit the page that describes the check-in you
> want to move and click on the "edit" link. Then select "Make this
> check-in the start of a new branch named" and enter the new branch
> name. Then press "Apply Changes
On 5/28/15, Luca Ferrari wrote:
> On Tue, May 26, 2015 at 6:14 PM, Ron W wrote:
>> As I understand it, you need to add 2 tags: "branch=mybranch" and
>> "sym-mybranch"
>
> Uhm..I've done a few experiments and apparently the following is not
> having any effect:
Use the web interface. Visit the p
On Tue, May 26, 2015 at 6:14 PM, Ron W wrote:
> As I understand it, you need to add 2 tags: "branch=mybranch" and
> "sym-mybranch"
Uhm..I've done a few experiments and apparently the following is not
having any effect:
% fossil tag add 'branch' 53c9207df8 ramo
% fossil tag cancel sym-trunk 53c92
On Mon, May 25, 2015 at 6:48 AM, Luca Ferrari wrote:
> Hi all,
> I tried to move commits to another thread using tags but I was unable to
> do it:
>
> fossil tag add --propagate mybranch 455802dfc6
> fossil tag cancel trunk 455802dfc6
>
> but the timeline always shows me the commits as being in t
Hi all,
I tried to move commits to another thread using tags but I was unable to do it:
fossil tag add --propagate mybranch 455802dfc6
fossil tag cancel trunk 455802dfc6
but the timeline always shows me the commits as being in trunk. I've
managed to do this using the web interface, making the abo
30 matches
Mail list logo
