> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf > Of Saša Janiška > > "dave" <[email protected]> writes: > > > 1) is fossil <-> git synchronization something that is > > 'experimental', and I should not touch it, or is it > expected to work? > > I also wonder about it...would like to provide some themes for the > static-site-generator which I use, but the upstream requires > to have it > as public url git repo, so I'd like to continue using Fossil and being > able to contribute to the project easily... > > Gour Gumblex provided a tip that 2.5 is required to avoid one problem I was having (I was using 2.4 -- life moves fast in fossilopolis). I have some work I must get done today, but I plan to go through my previous process again -- perhaps Wed -- and report back one way or the other on the experience.
I had many problems -- one of the weirdest was when the git had a 'stash' on it. This replicated into the fossil, and somehow prevented further syncing. I wound up needing to purge off a bunch of stuff, and just make an effective commit of about 10 or so checkins (sigh), then toss the git and start all over. At least the git was under my control so I could do this. One aspect I am unclear about is how critical are the contents of the 'marks' files? I.e. can I empty them and merely suffer a one-time suboptimal merge activity while they catch up, or will doing so cause Repo Madness? -dave _______________________________________________ fossil-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
