On 26/10/2011, at 5:59 PM, Nolan Darilek wrote:
> On 10/26/2011 04:50 PM, Stephan Beal wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 11:37 PM, Nolan Darilek
>> wrote:
>> like to see: hooks, and the ability to query the internal database and
>> output the results into a page.
>>
>> The JSON API provid
On 27.10.2011 02:15, Caleb Gray wrote:
@ Stephan Beal:
I see the appeal in creating a separate HTML application. I will take
this approach, and will see how everyone feels about having "installable
skins" in Fossil: shipping it with only the "Default" skin.
+1: Absolutely - optional AJAX applicat
On Thu, Oct 27, 2011 at 1:15 AM, Caleb Gray wrote:
> Awesome, I didn't find either the JSON demo or "The Doc" while reading
> through everything. Thanks for the links!
>
>
They're still very much in development, so don't get too attached to any
specific behaviours :). If you find pieces you espec
On Wed, 26 Oct 2011 16:15:11 -0700 Caleb Gray
wrote:
> @Dmitry Chestnykh:
> I just wrote a script for testing the speed and size difference
> between the different compressions available, find the results here:
> http://uploads.calebgray.com/contributions/compression/index.html
Thanks! I grepped
@ Stephan Beal:
I see the appeal in creating a separate HTML application. I will take
this approach, and will see how everyone feels about having "installable
skins" in Fossil: shipping it with only the "Default" skin.
Awesome, I didn't find either the JSON demo or "The Doc" while reading
through
On 10/26/2011 04:50 PM, Stephan Beal wrote:
On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 11:37 PM, Nolan Darilek
mailto:no...@thewordnerd.info>> wrote:
like to see: hooks, and the ability to query the internal database
and output the results into a page.
The JSON API provides a "query" command[1] which all
On Oct 26, 2011, at 11:50 PM, Stephan Beal wrote:
> The topic of "real" hooks has come up many times, and the main reason it
> hasn't been added so far is platform portability. (Sorry, i don't mean to
> start another dead-horse-beating thread.)
Nope, this has already been resolved. The reason no
On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 11:37 PM, Nolan Darilek wrote:
> like to see: hooks, and the ability to query the internal database and
> output the results into a page.
>
The JSON API provides a "query" command[1] which allows you to run arbitrary
queries and get the results as JSON, but it requires adm
Just to chime in here:
I like the JSON work, but I hope we'll eventually see a more dynamic
means of creating internal HTML pages. After about a year of using
Fossil, there are two features I'd dearly like to see: hooks, and the
ability to query the internal database and output the results int
On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 11:30 PM, Stephan Beal wrote:
> API we'll almost certainly create a separate interface (quite possibly as a
> separate
>
project)
>
Just to be clear: that would not mean a fork or other fundamental split from
fossil. One of the main purposes of the JSON API is to make such
On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 10:57 PM, Remigiusz Modrzejewski wrote:
> I'm one of the noscript people, but I'm also for a nice html5 ui. But it'd
> better be standalone using the json api.
>
There are _no_ plans to replace the current HTML interface. In the scope of
the JSON API we'll almost certainl
On Oct 26, 2011, at 4:39 PM, Steve Havelka wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Oct 2011 18:51:05 -0700 Caleb Gray wrote:
>>> [trimmed ...] What are the community's feelings on
>>> jQuery? I get the gist that externals are trying to be avoided, so
>>> that's why I'm asking, I would love to write a library that t
On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 05:47:22PM +0200, Dmitry Chestnykh wrote:
> 2011/10/26 Lluís Batlle i Rossell :> Forking and
> executing is not the same thing. I don't know in Windows, but in>
> unix, a fork of a upx program should be the same as a non-upx program.
> Fork (on *nix) applies to "fossil serve
2011/10/26 Lluís Batlle i Rossell :> Forking and
executing is not the same thing. I don't know in Windows, but in>
unix, a fork of a upx program should be the same as a non-upx program.
Fork (on *nix) applies to "fossil server". Fossil's CGI is, obviously,
run by webserver with fork/exec.
Also, Win
On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 05:27:41PM +0200, Dmitry Chestnykh wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 3:51 AM, Caleb Gray wrote:
> > 1) Compress the releases found on http://www.fossil-scm.org/download.html>
> > using UPX ( http://upx.sourceforge.net/).
> Note that Fossil in CGI mode is executed for each r
On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 3:51 AM, Caleb Gray wrote:
> 1) Compress the releases found on http://www.fossil-scm.org/download.html>
> using UPX ( http://upx.sourceforge.net/).
UPX is technology from the good ol' days, when people had tiny
floppies and hard drives. There's no reason to use it nowadays
On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 3:51 AM, Caleb Gray wrote:
> 2) Add (or replace zlib with) LZMA.
>
> Some of my repositories are very large; the compression difference between
> the DEFLATE algorithm and the LZMA algorithm is not negligible, and can even
> be substantial.
>
> Recently, even the Linux kern
On Tue, 25 Oct 2011 18:51:05 -0700 Caleb Gray wrote:
[trimmed ...] What are the community's feelings on
jQuery? I get the gist that externals are trying to be avoided, so
that's why I'm asking, I would love to write a library that turns the
current site in to a highly interactive version without
Ditto. Please resist the temptation to make Fossil into bloatware. The best
thing about the app, in my opinion, is the amount of features it has all
contained in a single binary that can be deployed practically anywhere.
On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 2:02 AM, Ron Aaron wrote:
> On 10/26/2011 10:59 AM,
On 10/26/2011 11:15 AM, Stephan Beal wrote:
>
>
> imagine what we could do for version, file/dir, and diff browsing with
> something like:
>
> http://mbostock.github.com/d3/talk/20111018/#8
>
I think that things of that nature would be computationally intensive,
and better suited to a separate uti
On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 11:02 AM, Ron Aaron wrote:
> On 10/26/2011 10:59 AM, Konstantin Khomoutov wrote:
> > I strongly disagree.
> > First, please don't fix what's not broken.
> Agree 100%
>
FWIW, i think we're all agreed that retrofitting the main HTML interface is
not The Right Thing to do (n
On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 12:59:05PM +0400, Konstantin Khomoutov wrote:
>
> [...]
> I'm one of those crazy folks who usually has NoScript turned on except
> for the intranet sites, so yes, I'm biased.
Same here. I don't think we should require c89 and
html5-browsers-with-javascript at once.
Regard
On 10/26/2011 10:59 AM, Konstantin Khomoutov wrote:
> I strongly disagree.
> First, please don't fix what's not broken.
Agree 100%
> P.S.
> I'm one of those crazy folks who usually has NoScript turned on except
> for the intranet sites, so yes, I'm biased.
>
Yes, so am I ...
On Tue, 25 Oct 2011 18:51:05 -0700
Caleb Gray wrote:
[...]
> 3) The web interface could use a face lift, as well as some HTML5
> functionality.
>
> I've got a lot of web development experience and would love to
> contribute in this area, also.
>
> All of the work on the JSON APIs is a great ste
Hi, Caleb!
i can't say much to points 1 and 2, but...
> 3) The web interface could use a face lift, as well as some HTML5
> functionality.
>
> I've got a lot of web development experience and would love to contribute
> in this area, also.
>
> All of the work on the JSON APIs is a great step tow
25 matches
Mail list logo
