2009/3/19 D. Richard Hipp <d...@hwaci.com> > It has been suggested that the ability to support multiple local > checkouts from the same repository is a design flaw in fossil. Hg, it > seems, supports exactly one local checkout per repository and in fact > the repository and the local checkout are the same thing. If you want > multiple check-outs, you clone the repository. Some feel that the > distinction between local checkout and repository is an unnecessary > complication. I'm not so sure, though. What would you users think if > we modified fossil so that the repository and the local check-out > became the same thing and so that there could only be a single local > check-out per repository and the local checkout would always have the > repository database at its root? That could be done in such a way > that it would be compatible with historical repositories, if it is > seen as desirable. The advantage is that the whole issue of "open" > and "close" go away with an accompanying reduction in complexity of > operation. The disadvantage is reduced flexibility. >
I use fossil. I don't use mercurial. I think my vote is obvious. ;)
_______________________________________________ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
