What is the point? Git manages file revisions and in this context it looks like you're asking fossil to do the same thing. What does one do that the other does not do?
//Bill On 08/05/2009 10:48 PM, Alec Clews wrote: > I've started to look at fossil as a small business process tool and > currently I use Git and GitHub for file management, which I'd like to > continue. The reason for using Git is a) It's very powerful and b) > it's a great way to share code. > > I'm testing a workflow where I think I can do the following > > 1) I create and use a git repo. My .gitignore file contains > > manifest > manifest.uuid > _FOSSIL_ > > 2) Open a fossil tree in the same directory and place the .git > subdirectory in fossil (fossil add .git) > > 3) use Git as intended, including sync with other repos and servers > such as GitHub > > 4) use fossil SCM to store a copy of my .git repo after each 'session' > (for some definition of session). I should be able to write some > wrapper scripts to add some of the meta data from git to fossil as > well > > Does this seem sensible? Anyone tried something similar, or radically > different? > > Thanks > > _______________________________________________ fossil-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
