On Thu, March 19, 2009 11:53 am, "D. Richard Hipp" <d...@hwaci.com> wrote: > > 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 would be against this I think, if it became the only way to work. What it takes away from me is the ability to quickly create another local checkout (possibly of a different version) to try out or investigate something without disturbing the carefully crafted but incomplete changes in the "primary" local checkout :-). Why would I want the complication of another layer of repository for this? And I never open or close my "primary" local checkout for each repository. Actually, it feels like a change in philosophy - what does a repository mean? Regards, Eric _______________________________________________ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
