Re: [fossil-users] Is it possible to merge repository's?

[David Mason]

You can have a working directory for one repository nested inside a folder in a 
working directory of another repository.  See the —nested option for `fossil 
open`.

I use this *extensively*. It’s very convenient. But it may not be quite what 
you want because you do have to commit separately for each repo.

../Dave

On May 31, 2017, 12:37 PM -0400, The Tick , wrote:
> The reason I had is because I started a subproject and, after a couple
> weeks, realized that it would be more convenient to have its repository
> merged into my main project as a sub-directory. I thought this might be
> an existing feature somehow.
___
fossil-users mailing list
fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org
http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users

Re: [fossil-users] Is it possible to merge repository's?

[The Tick]

On 5/31/2017 10:57 AM, Ron W wrote:

On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 8:00 AM,
<fossil-users-requ...@lists.fossil-scm.org
<mailto:fossil-users-requ...@lists.fossil-scm.org>> wrote:

Date: Mon, 29 May 2017 22:35:31 -0500
From: The Tick <the.t...@gmx.com <mailto:the.t...@gmx.com>>
    Subject: Re: [fossil-users] Is it possible to merge repository's?

On 5/29/2017 10:30 PM, Andy Bradford wrote:
> Thus said Stephan Beal on Tue, 30 May 2017 02:57:38 +0200:
>
>> However, there is  _hypothetically_ a way to completely  merge 2
repos
>> into one while keeping all commits, but i'm not at all certain if
this
>> would work...
>
> I think it actually will work for some definition of ``work''.
I've done
> it before.
>
> But... it depends on what one expects out of it.
>
> There will  be 2 separate  and independent timelines  once
reconstructed
> and there  will not be a  relationship between artifacts except
for the
> fact that they all live in the same Fossil file.
>

 From this I gather that there would be no way to connect the imported
repository onto the main trunk. That was not what I was hoping for.


What is your objective?

Once you have both time lines in one repository, you can then fetch
files from both into a single checkout and start making checkins  that
affect both timelines, therefore, effectively merging the timelines at
that checkin.

To get the "combined" checkout, I think you would have to "fossil
checkout uuidLatestA", then make a trivial change to all the files, then
"fossil update uuidLatestB".

At this point a commit would affect both timelines.

Though, as Stephan mentioned, you might need to do a reparent command to
insure that both uuidLatestA and uuidLatestB are parents of this new commit.



Thanks for the suggestions.

The reason I had is because I started a subproject and, after a couple 
weeks, realized that it would be more convenient to have its repository 
merged into my main project as a sub-directory. I thought this might be 
an existing feature somehow.


As I have just begun using fossil in the past month or so, the 
suggestions here are pretty much over my head and I don't feel 
comfortable enough with fossil to begin experimenting at this depth.



___
fossil-users mailing list
fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org
http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users

Re: [fossil-users] Is it possible to merge repository's?

[Ron W]

On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 8:00 AM, <fossil-users-requ...@lists.fossil-scm.org>
wrote:
>
> Date: Mon, 29 May 2017 22:35:31 -0500
> From: The Tick <the.t...@gmx.com>
> Subject: Re: [fossil-users] Is it possible to merge repository's?
>
> On 5/29/2017 10:30 PM, Andy Bradford wrote:
> > Thus said Stephan Beal on Tue, 30 May 2017 02:57:38 +0200:
> >
> >> However, there is  _hypothetically_ a way to completely  merge 2 repos
> >> into one while keeping all commits, but i'm not at all certain if this
> >> would work...
> >
> > I think it actually will work for some definition of ``work''. I've done
> > it before.
> >
> > But... it depends on what one expects out of it.
> >
> > There will  be 2 separate  and independent timelines  once reconstructed
> > and there  will not be a  relationship between artifacts except  for the
> > fact that they all live in the same Fossil file.
> >
>
>  From this I gather that there would be no way to connect the imported
> repository onto the main trunk. That was not what I was hoping for.
>

What is your objective?

Once you have both time lines in one repository, you can then fetch files
from both into a single checkout and start making checkins  that affect
both timelines, therefore, effectively merging the timelines at that
checkin.

To get the "combined" checkout, I think you would have to "fossil checkout
uuidLatestA", then make a trivial change to all the files, then "fossil
update uuidLatestB".

At this point a commit would affect both timelines.

Though, as Stephan mentioned, you might need to do a reparent command to
insure that both uuidLatestA and uuidLatestB are parents of this new commit.
___
fossil-users mailing list
fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org
http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users

Re: [fossil-users] Is it possible to merge repository's?

[Eduard]

On 05/29/2017 11:35 PM, The Tick wrote:
> On 5/29/2017 10:30 PM, Andy Bradford wrote:
>> Thus said Stephan Beal on Tue, 30 May 2017 02:57:38 +0200:
>>
>>> However, there is  _hypothetically_ a way to completely  merge 2 repos
>>> into one while keeping all commits, but i'm not at all certain if this
>>> would work...
>>
>> I think it actually will work for some definition of ``work''. I've done
>> it before.
>>
>> But... it depends on what one expects out of it.
>>
>> There will  be 2 separate  and independent timelines  once reconstructed
>> and there  will not be a  relationship between artifacts except  for the
>> fact that they all live in the same Fossil file.
>>
>
> From this I gather that there would be no way to connect the imported
> repository onto the main trunk. That was not what I was hoping for.
>
> If I decide to do it, I'll probably look into a shell script to
> checkout each commit, then add and commit to the target repository.
>
Have you considered the "reparent" subcommand?

Usage: fossil reparent [OPTIONS] CHECK-IN PARENT 
*
**Create a "parent" tag that causes CHECK-IN to be interpreted as a**
**child of PARENT.*  If multiple PARENTs are listed, then the first is
the primary parent and others are merge ancestors.

This is an experts-only command.  *It is used to patch up a repository*
that has been damaged by a shun or *that has been pieced together from**
**two or more separate repositories**.*  You should never need to reparent
during normal operations.

___
fossil-users mailing list
fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org
http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users

Re: [fossil-users] Is it possible to merge repository's?

[Andy Bradford]

Thus said The Tick on Mon, 29 May 2017 22:35:31 -0500:

> From this I gather that there would  be no way to connect the imported
> repository onto the main trunk. That was not what I was hoping for.

You're correct, you would have 2 trunks.

Andy
-- 
TAI64 timestamp: 4000592dd034


___
fossil-users mailing list
fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org
http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users

Re: [fossil-users] Is it possible to merge repository's?

[The Tick]

On 5/29/2017 10:30 PM, Andy Bradford wrote:

Thus said Stephan Beal on Tue, 30 May 2017 02:57:38 +0200:


However, there is  _hypothetically_ a way to completely  merge 2 repos
into one while keeping all commits, but i'm not at all certain if this
would work...


I think it actually will work for some definition of ``work''. I've done
it before.

But... it depends on what one expects out of it.

There will  be 2 separate  and independent timelines  once reconstructed
and there  will not be a  relationship between artifacts except  for the
fact that they all live in the same Fossil file.



From this I gather that there would be no way to connect the imported 
repository onto the main trunk. That was not what I was hoping for.


If I decide to do it, I'll probably look into a shell script to checkout 
each commit, then add and commit to the target repository.


___
fossil-users mailing list
fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org
http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users

Re: [fossil-users] Is it possible to merge repository's?

[Andy Bradford]

Thus said Stephan Beal on Tue, 30 May 2017 02:57:38 +0200:

> However, there is  _hypothetically_ a way to completely  merge 2 repos
> into one while keeping all commits, but i'm not at all certain if this
> would work...

I think it actually will work for some definition of ``work''. I've done
it before.

But... it depends on what one expects out of it.

There will  be 2 separate  and independent timelines  once reconstructed
and there  will not be a  relationship between artifacts except  for the
fact that they all live in the same Fossil file.

Andy
-- 
TAI64 timestamp: 4000592ce763


___
fossil-users mailing list
fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org
http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users

Re: [fossil-users] Is it possible to merge repository's?

[Stephan Beal]

On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 2:57 AM, Stephan Beal  wrote:

> b) copy (recursively) the "deconstructed" files from repo 2 over the ones
> from repo 2.
>

Typo: from repo 2 to repo 1, of course.

-- 
- stephan beal
http://wanderinghorse.net/home/stephan/
"Freedom is sloppy. But since tyranny's the only guaranteed byproduct of
those who insist on a perfect world, freedom will have to do." -- Bigby Wolf
___
fossil-users mailing list
fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org
http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users

Re: [fossil-users] Is it possible to merge repository's?

[Stephan Beal]

On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 2:09 AM, The Tick  wrote:

> Probably a quick question: is it possible to merge one repository into
> another and retain all the commit messages? There are no common files. It
> would be really great if I could specify the root within repository #1 at
> which to merge repository #2
>
> From what I've googled, I think the answer is "no".
>

Google is correct.

However, there is _hypothetically_ a way to completely merge 2 repos into
one while keeping all commits, but i'm not at all certain if this would
work...

a) 'fossil deconstruct' 2 repos.
b) copy (recursively) the "deconstructed" files from repo 2 over the ones
from repo 2.
c) 'fossil reconstruct' from that shared set of files.
d) i don't think that 'fossil rebuild' is necessary after reconstruct, but
it can't hurt.

No idea if it would _really_ work, but if it does then (best case) you'll
end up with two completely independent trunks which no common ancestor.
Worst case, it simply doesn't work. (However, i _think_ it will.)

If you try it, be sure to share your results with us.

-- 
- stephan beal
http://wanderinghorse.net/home/stephan/
"Freedom is sloppy. But since tyranny's the only guaranteed byproduct of
those who insist on a perfect world, freedom will have to do." -- Bigby Wolf
___
fossil-users mailing list
fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org
http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users