On 11/24/17, Ron W <[email protected]> wrote: > > Your wiki page summary and replies in this discussion imply you would > implement interoperability with git by having fossil store git artifacts.
I don't know yet if it would be better to store Git artifacts natively, or to translate them into Fossil artifacts. The final implementation might do either. Or both. We'll just have to wait and see. > > Between your comments that git/Fossil artifact translation has significant > overhear (and a claim that "git fast-export | (cd /new/path; git > fast-import)" is not lossy), there is an implication that git artifacts do > not support all of Fossil's metadata. > > What effect will this reduced metadata have on applying Fossil semantics to > git artifacts? > Git artifacts do not support named branches, the ability to edit a check-in comment, the ability to edit a check-in date/time, wiki, nor tickets. So if you do any of those things, they won't push back up to the Git repo to which you are syncing. I suppose that if Fossil knows that it is syncing with Git and you try to do any of those things (and perhaps other stuff I haven't yet thought of) then Fossil should show a scary warning to the effect that "If you do this, the result of your actions will not be pushable to Git - are you sure you want to continue?" -- D. Richard Hipp [email protected] _______________________________________________ fossil-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
