On Fri, Nov 24, 2017 at 7:19 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: > > Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2017 19:19:27 -0500 > From: Richard Hipp <[email protected]> > To: "Fossil SCM user's discussion" <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [fossil-users] Fossil-NG Bloat? > Message-ID: > <CALwJ=Mwy=Vh4=yLt0Y=yn5b4R2Y7iehBRwFfk=PtbjcQ- > [email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > On 11/24/17, Ron W <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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?" >
I suppose artifact types git doesn't support could simply not be pushed. As I recall, a "git push" only pushes a single branch (master by default), so how Fossil stores branches would be irrelevant to git. However, specifically to Github: Github states it stores wiki pages in a sperate, parallel git repo. The format is "reponame.wiki.git". So, Fossil could pull/push from/to both git repos when dealing with Github. Again, how Fossil stores wiki pages would not matter. Tickets (including pull requests) on Github appear to be stored in a separate database. Github calls them "issues". Not sure of the effort required to maintain and synchronize a local copy of Github issues. I have not looked at how other Github-like services handle wiki pages and tickets.
_______________________________________________ fossil-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
