Pijul

Development


Topic Replies Created
Warning: Patch hash format changed (breaking change)

The patch hashes are currently base64-encodings of the SHA2-512 of the patch as written in binary. This is not optimal, especially when we need to copy-paste hashes (which does not happen very often for me). I was thin…

9 October 2, 2017
About the Development category 1 June 1, 2017
Building a git-ssb like remote for ssb 1 April 4, 2019
Using rustfmt systemically 30 May 12, 2018
Incorporating discussions into the repo itself 8 May 11, 2018
Calling branches "branches" is misleading 9 February 4, 2019
AST-level diffs and merges 11 April 15, 2018
Ask before proceeding when unrecording a patch with dependencies 9 February 4, 2019
[SOLVED] KeyError fix 3 January 17, 2019
Suggestion: change executable name to `pj` 6 December 28, 2018
Bad performance 17 January 24, 2018
Redmine integration 2 October 19, 2018
Patching patches 20 May 12, 2018
Random Talks and Thoughts 19 June 2, 2017
Git compatibility 8 April 21, 2018
A composable pijul user interface? (brainstorm) 21 October 15, 2017
Benchmarking pijul 2 April 25, 2018
Last adjustments before Pijul 0.10 3 April 19, 2018
Semantics of "missing contexts" conflicts 7 February 28, 2018
Lots of conflicts 7 February 5, 2018
Getting ready for 0.9 4 January 11, 2018
Prepare the release of pijul-0.8 10 September 5, 2017
Writing the patch description from an editor 8 July 17, 2017
Heads-up: recent bugs with conflicts and with the Nest 6 August 31, 2017
Pre-record hook 7 August 26, 2017
Request for comments: Listing files with conflicts in `pijul status` 14 June 28, 2017
About warning: using `clone` on a `Copy` type [clone_on_copy] 5 August 12, 2017
Spontaneous (non-)branching vs. tree-style branches 10 June 15, 2017
Official Reporitories and Official History 19 July 11, 2017
Prepare pijul-0.7.0 21 June 5, 2017