Hi,

After reading the manual I have got a couple of questions: In Why Pijul -> Modelling part: “Actually, after applying new changes, we even have to do extra work to find where the conflicts are.” I do not understand the concept here. What does this mean in everyday use? Also in Theory part there are a couple of words explaining this behavior, but it is hard to imagine the workflow. Could You give some example?

Another thing I can not figure out: The manual says that pijul is able to work with patches sent via email. As far as i understand it I can do the following:

pijul change IQ7R5IF2HTBH73OXF47GXIDBJINZBTB3FNAHIVV5SDGQNFYCY4GQC > mychange.pijul
gzip mychange.pijul
# email to somebody, then he/she can
cat mychange.pijul.gz | pijul apply

But this way pijul will generate a different hash for the patch, but the point would be keeping the hash, isn’t it?

Thanks,

I would like to also note that with latest release (1.0.0-alpha.1) pijul push via ssh does not work, with latest version it does, but it only pushes one change with each push, so this time I had to run it 8 times.

Hi! I finally found the time to come back to this. Thanks for all these changes.

The text change format is supposed to give the same hash when parsed initially by pijul record, and when parsed from the output of pijul change. If not, that is a bug.

Alright, I could apply the CSS one, but the others have changed substantially. In order to keep the manual updated (which has always been a major difficulty for this project), we now generate it from “clap” documentation.

Hi,

Thanks for the reply. I totally agree, that command documentation should be auto-generated.

Thanks for the reply!

I’ve started taking your individual changes into account though, to try and integrate them into the existing documentation.

Give me a couple of days, I will look into it and try to convert them to clam documentation.