pasqualinoferrentino-fos...@yahoo.it wrote: > Sorry I am a newbie for fossil; until now I have used git and > mercurial. >
Welcome to Fossil then ... > I have a doubt regarding the sentence: > > "A fossil repository is a 'unordered bag' of artifacts". > > In mercurial and in git the emphasys is on the "graph" > concept... every object (for example in git a commit or a blob or a > tag) is related to others... > > In any case also in fossil an artifact is related to others... so for > me (sorry for the naive question) in any case also in fossil we have a > graph, only that it is "hidden" inside the artifact format and not > "external" in the repository "metadata". > > Could it be correct as a comment? > I would say, you are right! The artifacts are somehow related to each other, but this relationship is contained in the artifacts itself. The repository, however, is only a container (unordered bag) holding these artifacts. You could try to do a fossil deconstruct deconstructed within a checkout. This will create a directory 'deconstructed' with all artifacts written out in readable format sorted by, IIRC, the first two character of the artifact's sha1-id. With fossil reconstruct repos.fsl deconstructed Fossil should be able to re-create 'repos.fsl' out from the artifacts contained in 'deconstructed'. But I believe, that Fossil do held some further metadata also contained in the artifacts in extra tables for performance reasons (kind of cache). These tables can easily be repopulated at will with fossil rebuild if necessary (i.e. the database format has changed). :-) (...) Ciao, chi. _______________________________________________ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
