On Fri, Nov 24, 2017 at 7:00 AM, <fossil-users-requ...@lists.fossil-scm.org> wrote: > > Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2017 05:55:51 -0500 > From: Richard Hipp <d...@sqlite.org> > Subject: Re: [fossil-users] Fossil-NG Bloat? > > On 11/24/17, Johan Kuuse <jo...@kuu.se> wrote: > > I agree on that we would give up Fossil semantics. > > I have no intent to "give up" or change the semantics of Fossil, and I > see no reason why enabling Fossil to push and pull from Git > repositories would require this. >
Your wiki page summary and replies in this discussion imply you would implement interoperability with git by having fossil store git artifacts. 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?
_______________________________________________ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
