On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 8:03 PM, Richard Hartmann
wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 18:45, Joey Hess wrote:
>> mr can look much nicer if you take advantage of locality and chaining.
>> By locality, I mean putting a mrconfig close to the directories it
>> checks out, rather than in some standards-b
On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 5:40 PM, Pieter Praet wrote:
>> However this doesn't work - I'm guessing that variable expansion in
>> the section headers is done in Perl, so is not influenced by the
>> shell-code in the DEFAULT lib?
>>
>> So is there any other way of avoiding this duplication?
>
> This s
Richard Hartmann wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 21:23, Joey Hess wrote:
>
> > Hmm, either the main git-annex branch or origin/git-annex seems to be
> > missing based on the error message, and I don't think it's the latter.
>
> Both are there.
git log git-annex..origin/git-annex fails, so both
On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 21:23, Joey Hess wrote:
> Hmm, either the main git-annex branch or origin/git-annex seems to be
> missing based on the error message, and I don't think it's the latter.
Both are there.
> The only place the uuid for a repository is stored is .git/config.
% git init .
In
Richard Hartmann wrote:
> No, the branch was still there. If you want the contents, I can send
> them off-list.
Hmm, either the main git-annex branch or origin/git-annex seems to be
missing based on the error message, and I don't think it's the latter.
> Sounds like a good idea. One question abou
On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 18:45, Joey Hess wrote:
> mr can look much nicer if you take advantage of locality and chaining.
> By locality, I mean putting a mrconfig close to the directories it
> checks out, rather than in some standards-body controlled directory like
> ~/.config.
You mean that ~/.g
On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 18:23, Adam Spiers wrote:
> Ah thanks, I did wonder about that.
Yah, I hope the "old" version will drop off of google at some point to
avoid confusion.
> Sure, there's no right and wrong. It sounds like your preference is
> based on a sense of aesthetics rather than mo
On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 18:33, Joey Hess wrote:
> It seems your repository has lost the git-annex branch.
No, the branch was still there. If you want the contents, I can send
them off-list.
> You might try running git fsck to get a better view of the damage,
> but it's unlikely to fix anything
Adam Spiers wrote:
> So far mr is clearly winning :-) However, cfgctl does have one or two
> tricks up its sleeve:
>
> - Config modules / packages / repositories / whatever you want to
> call them are indexed by name within a unique namespace, rather
> than by directory path, and packag
Adam Spiers wrote:
> If I have multiple repository paths all similar but spread across
> different .mrconfig files, e.g.
>
> in ~/.mrconfig
>
> [.config/mr]
> checkout = ...
>
> in ~/.config/mr/config.d/CLI:
>
> [$HOME/.git-repos/zsh]
> ...
>
> [$HOME/.git-repos/mutt]
>
On Fri, 28 Oct 2011 16:42:16 +0100, Adam Spiers wrote:
> If I have multiple repository paths all similar but spread across
> different .mrconfig files, e.g.
>
> in ~/.mrconfig
>
> [.config/mr]
> checkout = ...
>
> in ~/.config/mr/config.d/CLI:
>
> [$HOME/.git-repos/zsh]
> ...
>
Richard Hartmann wrote:
> fatal: ambiguous argument 'git-annex..refs/remotes/origin/git-annex':
> unknown revision or path not in the working tree.
It seems your repository has lost the git-annex branch.
You might try running git fsck to get a better view of the damage,
but it's unlikely to fix a
On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 4:09 PM, Richard Hartmann
wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 16:14, Adam Spiers wrote:
>
> FYI: My version of vcsh [1] is different from madduck's. He graciously
> agreed to let me have the name and may switch over to my
> re-implementation soon from what I heard from him.
If I have multiple repository paths all similar but spread across
different .mrconfig files, e.g.
in ~/.mrconfig
[.config/mr]
checkout = ...
in ~/.config/mr/config.d/CLI:
[$HOME/.git-repos/zsh]
...
[$HOME/.git-repos/mutt]
...
and in ~/.config/mr/config.d/GUI:
[$HO
mumble..
[1] https://github.com/RichiH/vcsh
___
vcs-home mailing list
vcs-home@lists.madduck.net
http://lists.madduck.net/listinfo/vcs-home
On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 16:14, Adam Spiers wrote:
FYI: My version of vcsh [1] is different from madduck's. He graciously
agreed to let me have the name and may switch over to my
re-implementation soon from what I heard from him.
> (a) Are your ~/.* files symlinks or not?
Not any more.
> (b
On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 3:26 PM, Dieter Plaetinck wrote:
> You wrote "However I might very well want to manually place other
> files inside ~/local which have nothing to do with stow".
>
> Now you wrote "As far as I'm aware, all my files are nicely
> separated into appropriate packages".
>
> That
On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 03:14:38PM +0100, Adam Spiers wrote:
> So with the direction this subthread is going, it seems a good time
> to ask everyone:
>
>(a) Are your ~/.* files symlinks or not?
>(b) Why?
I symlink for reasons similar to what you gave:
- Immediately know what is manag
Hi all,
somehow, I manage to attract all the bugs...
My laptop died during a copy to a repo on a local USB drive.
After rebooting, I saw that several files are corrupt, amongst them
part of the git-annex data.
Now, when I try to copy anything, I get a load of:
fatal: ambiguous argument 'git-an
On Fri, 28 Oct 2011 15:00:52 +0100
Adam Spiers wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 2:43 PM, Dieter Plaetinck
> wrote:
> > On Fri, 28 Oct 2011 14:34:16 +0100
> > Adam Spiers wrote:
> >> However I might very well want to manually place other files inside
> >> ~/local which have nothing to do with st
So with the direction this subthread is going, it seems a good time
to ask everyone:
(a) Are your ~/.* files symlinks or not?
(b) Why?
I get the impression that some people on this list prefer to use git's
detached working trees feature, e.g.
http://www.mail-archive.com/vcs-home@lists.ma
On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 2:43 PM, Dieter Plaetinck wrote:
> On Fri, 28 Oct 2011 14:34:16 +0100
> Adam Spiers wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 12:40 PM, Dieter Plaetinck
>> wrote:
>> > Sorry that I go slightly off-topic but you mentioned Gnu Stow, I
>> > looked it up and it seems very nice. i h
On Fri, 28 Oct 2011 14:34:16 +0100
Adam Spiers wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 12:40 PM, Dieter Plaetinck
> wrote:
> > Sorry that I go slightly off-topic but you mentioned Gnu Stow, I
> > looked it up and it seems very nice. i haven't run it yet, but (for
> > those who don't want to read the lo
On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 12:40 PM, Dieter Plaetinck wrote:
> Sorry that I go slightly off-topic but you mentioned Gnu Stow, I looked it up
> and it seems very nice.
> i haven't run it yet, but (for those who don't want to read the long
> description) from the description it seems like a simple an
Sorry that I go slightly off-topic but you mentioned Gnu Stow, I looked it up
and it seems very nice.
i haven't run it yet, but (for those who don't want to read the long
description) from the description it seems like a simple and elegant tool,
which you give a directory ("i want symlinks here")
Hi all,
I've been tracking my dot files and related stuff since around 1999,
and was very excited to discover this mailing list two years ago.
Since then I've only been able to lurk, but finally have a bit of
spare time to participate.
Since 2005 I have been using my own (as yet unpublished) Perl
26 matches
Mail list logo
