Re: [fossil-users] Fossil-NG ideas

On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 6:43 PM, <fossil-users-requ...@lists.fossil-scm.org> wrote: > > Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2017 15:25:37 -0700 > From: Warren Young <war...@etr-usa.com> > Subject: Re: [fossil-users] Fossil-NG ideas > > On Nov 21, 2017, at 2:09 PM, Ron W <ronw.m...@

Re: [fossil-users] Fossil-NG ideas

On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 07:01:31PM -0500, Richard Hipp wrote: > > (2) Store true differential manifests. > > I'm thinking that Fossil-NG will probably do like Git and store > separate artifacts holding the content of each directory. (Git calls > these "Tree Objects"). I need to do more

Re: [fossil-users] Fossil-NG ideas

On 11/22/17, Joerg Sonnenberger wrote: > > (1) The need to parse all artifacts on clone. Artificates should be > strongly typed, i.e. the system should at the very least distinguish > fully between "content" blobs and "meta data" blobs. Only the latter > have and should be parsed.

Re: [fossil-users] Fossil-NG ideas

On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 01:33:11PM -0700, Warren Young wrote: > I see a new wiki article: > > https://www.fossil-scm.org/index.html/wiki?name=Fossil-NG There are two central design flaws in Fossil that affect larger repositories and those are the repos that primarily benefit from

Re: [fossil-users] Fossil-NG ideas

On Nov 21, 2017, at 2:09 PM, Ron W wrote: > > While I like the idea of a "smart default" for the file name, I'd rather have > an "--open" (or "-o") option to trigger the automatic "fossil open”. So…you want to remain more difficult to use than Git in this regard? That’s

Re: [fossil-users] Fossil-NG ideas

On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 4:09 PM, wrote: > > Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2017 16:08:20 -0500 > From: Richard Hipp > > The overhead for a small batch of commits non-zero but it is > manageable. A full clone, on the other hand, is too expensive.

Re: [fossil-users] Fossil-NG ideas

On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 5:22 PM, <fossil-users-requ...@lists.fossil-scm.org> wrote: > > Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2017 13:33:11 -0700 > From: Warren Young <war...@etr-usa.com> > Subject: [fossil-users] Fossil-NG ideas > > There is one more thing Git really gets right com

Re: [fossil-users] Fossil-NG ideas

OK. My mistake. I misunderstood the post. Cheers, Offray On 20/11/17 18:04, Warren Young wrote: > On Nov 20, 2017, at 3:41 PM, Offray Vladimir Luna Cárdenas > wrote: >> On 20/11/17 17:22, Warren Young wrote: >>> On Nov 20, 2017, at 3:12 PM, Offray Vladimir Luna Cárdenas

Re: [fossil-users] Fossil-NG ideas

On Nov 20, 2017, at 4:04 PM, Warren Young wrote: > > Git allows you to do this in 2 steps: clone & cd. Fossil currently requires > 5, as I showed up-thread. 4 steps. The fifth step in the post starting this thread is part of a separate thought.

Re: [fossil-users] Fossil-NG ideas

On Nov 20, 2017, at 3:41 PM, Offray Vladimir Luna Cárdenas wrote: > > On 20/11/17 17:22, Warren Young wrote: >> On Nov 20, 2017, at 3:12 PM, Offray Vladimir Luna Cárdenas >> wrote: >>> I thought that was the extension >>> the shallow cloned repository

Re: [fossil-users] Fossil-NG ideas

On Nov 20, 2017, at 1:33 PM, Warren Young wrote: > > There is one more thing Git really gets right compared to Fossil: single-step > clone-and-open. We should be able to do the same: I’ve prototyped this as a simple shell script: #!/bin/sh -e url=$1 shift

Re: [fossil-users] Fossil-NG ideas

On 20/11/17 17:22, Warren Young wrote: > On Nov 20, 2017, at 3:12 PM, Offray Vladimir Luna Cárdenas > wrote: >> I thought that was the extension >> the shallow cloned repository would get if no extension name was specified. > If you say > > $ fossil clone

Re: [fossil-users] Fossil-NG ideas

On Nov 20, 2017, at 3:12 PM, Offray Vladimir Luna Cárdenas wrote: > > I thought that was the extension > the shallow cloned repository would get if no extension name was specified. If you say $ fossil clone https://fossil-scm.org fossil You get a repository file called

Re: [fossil-users] Fossil-NG ideas

On 20/11/17 17:01, Warren Young wrote: > On Nov 20, 2017, at 2:55 PM, Offray Vladimir Luna Cárdenas > wrote: >> On 20/11/17 16:45, Carlo Miron wrote: >>> On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 9:33 PM, Warren Young wrote: >>> When the FILENAME parameter is not

Re: [fossil-users] Fossil-NG ideas

On Nov 20, 2017, at 2:55 PM, Offray Vladimir Luna Cárdenas wrote: > > On 20/11/17 16:45, Carlo Miron wrote: >> On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 9:33 PM, Warren Young wrote: >> >>> When the FILENAME parameter is not given, it produces a “Fossil” >>> subdirectory

Re: [fossil-users] Fossil-NG ideas

On 20/11/17 16:45, Carlo Miron wrote: > On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 9:33 PM, Warren Young wrote: > > >> There is one more thing Git really gets right compared to Fossil: >> single-step clone-and-open. We should be able to do the same: >> >> $ fossil clone

Re: [fossil-users] Fossil-NG ideas

On Nov 20, 2017, at 1:33 PM, Warren Young wrote: > > I see a new wiki article: > >https://www.fossil-scm.org/index.html/wiki?name=Fossil-NG Shallow clones bear some thinking, too. Let us posit that “fossil clone” takes a -shallow option with no argument, telling it to

Re: [fossil-users] Fossil-NG ideas

On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 9:33 PM, Warren Young wrote: > There is one more thing Git really gets right compared to Fossil: single-step > clone-and-open. We should be able to do the same: > > $ fossil clone https://fossil-scm.org > > When the FILENAME parameter is not

[fossil-users] Fossil-NG ideas

I see a new wiki article: https://www.fossil-scm.org/index.html/wiki?name=Fossil-NG I’m glad to see shallow and narrow clones being planned. The section on narrow clones should specify whether these can take on a life independent of the parent repository. That is, can they be used to