The situation with the aolserver repos in general and
on bitbucket in particular is confusing, i also fail to understand,
why there is a need for two aolserver repos at bitbucket:
https://bitbucket.org/aolserver/
I do not know, who the owner of these repos is. Cloning
these repos and to con
Can someone with write access also convert the AOLserver Mercurial
repositories on BitBucket to Git, so we still have that stuff for
historical reference, once BitBucket deletes all the Mercurial
repositories?
https://bitbucket.org/aolserver/aolserver-40x/src/default/
https://bitbucket.org/aolserv
In case you are wondering about the changed modification
dates of the NaviServer repositories at bitbucket: i've updated
the "description" fields of the git repositories, since these are
used for search on bitbucket. These had to be updated manually...
-g
__
On Sun, 9 Feb 2020 10:51:55 +0100
Gustaf Neumann wrote:
> all NaviServer repositories are now converted on bitbucket to git.
You are a gentleman and a scholar!
___
naviserver-devel mailing list
naviserver-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.so
Dear all,
all NaviServer repositories are now converted on bitbucket to git.
The "old" mercurial repositories are still on bitbucket, but named
with the suffix "-hg". For example the mercurial repository of
main naviserver is called "naviserver-hg", while "naviserver"
is the git repository.
In
Dear all,
So far, i've received only positive feedback!
I'll start with the migration on the weekend, but try to make
the migration phase as short as possible to reduce documentation
and communication work for differences in the migration phase.
all the best
-gn
On 10.01.20 09:55, Gustaf Neu
Dear Gustaf!
I just cloned the new git repository and compiled it without any
problems. The history dates back to the first revision in 2006, the tags
are up-to-date.
I haven't found any problems.
Regards,
Wolfgang
Am 10.01.20 um 09:55 schrieb Gustaf Neumann:
Dear all,
Bitbucket has defi
Dear all,
Bitbucket has defined the following dates for shutting down their
mercurial support, which are in the not too distant future:
- February 1, 2020: users will no longer be able to create new
Mercurial repositories
- June 1, 2020: users will not be able to use Mercurial features in
On Fri, 30 Aug 2019, Jeff Rogers wrote:
It's struck me as odd that the source was hosted on bitbucket ...
Perhaps the best would be to host it in a server running naviserver
with fossil as cgi (or scgi or http proxy) script. :)
https://fossil-scm.org/index.html/doc/trunk/www/server/
I find
Sourceforge supports mercurial repos as well as git. It's struck me as
odd that the source was hosted on bitbucket while the "main page" and
distributions are on SF; is there history for why the source repo isn't
on SF as well?
-J
On 08/29/2019 03:06 AM, Zoran Vasiljevic wrote:
On Thu, 2
On Thu, 29 Aug 2019, Zoran Vasiljevic wrote:
I believe most logical choice is git. I'm not fan of any of
the systems, to be honest.
Yes, it seems. I am also not a fan of anyone, and much less of
this inflation of versioning systems. But I see advantages of
CVS and fossil, in quite very diffe
On Thu, 29 Aug 2019 09:13:17 + (UTC)
Roderick wrote:
> After reading something about mercurial only for cloning Naviservers
> Repo, I read this:
>
> https://bitbucket.org/blog/sunsetting-mercurial-support-in-bitbucket
>
> It would be nice to have NaviServer as fossil repo. :)
I believe mos
After reading something about mercurial only for cloning Naviservers
Repo, I read this:
https://bitbucket.org/blog/sunsetting-mercurial-support-in-bitbucket
It would be nice to have NaviServer as fossil repo. :)
Rodrigo
___
naviserver-devel mailin
13 matches
Mail list logo
