On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 1:46 AM, Andy Bradford
wrote:
> But as for converting from embedded documentation to wiki, I cannot
> imagine it would be too difficult if the markdown is similar.
Fossil wiki markup and Fossil markdown markup are both used for both Fossil
On 1/18/16, Jonathan Otsuka wrote:
>>
>> Can you use "embedded documentation"
>> (https://www.fossil-scm.org/fossil/doc/cd58f59a474c7ef773d1/www/embeddeddoc.wiki)
>> instead of Wiki? That way you can import using "fossil import"...
>>
>> Almost all of the Fossil documentation
I have a few git repositories I would like to transition to fossil wiki. My
current thinking is to iterate through the git history and do fossil wiki
commits. We want to keep the history. Is there a better way to do this?
Jonathan Otsuka
___
> On Jan 18, 2016, at 7:20 PM, Richard Hipp wrote:
>
>> On 1/18/16, Jonathan Otsuka wrote:
>> I have a few git repositories I would like to transition to fossil wiki. My
>> current thinking is to iterate through the git history and do fossil wiki
>> commits.
On 1/18/16, Jonathan Otsuka wrote:
> I have a few git repositories I would like to transition to fossil wiki. My
> current thinking is to iterate through the git history and do fossil wiki
> commits. We want to keep the history. Is there a better way to do this?
>
Can you use
> On Jan 18, 2016, at 7:32 PM, Richard Hipp wrote:
>
> On 1/18/16, Jonathan Otsuka wrote:
>>>
>>> Can you use "embedded documentation"
>>> (https://www.fossil-scm.org/fossil/doc/cd58f59a474c7ef773d1/www/embeddeddoc.wiki)
>>> instead of Wiki? That way you
Thus said Jonathan Otsuka on Mon, 18 Jan 2016 20:24:12 -0600:
> Is there a way to convert embedded documentation to wiki format? Are
> the internal structures much different?
The benefit to the embedded documentation is simply that they are files
under revision control. This makes editing
7 matches
Mail list logo