Git has two big advantages 1) It syncs with other Git users (or even svn users etc if needed) and central servers like GitHub and Gitorious 2) It has a much richer VC environemt (e.g. I can define custom merge drivers, reorder commits etc etc)
On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 13:19, Bill Whiting<[email protected]> wrote: > 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? >> -- Alec Clews Personal <[email protected]> Melbourne, Australia. Jabber: [email protected] PGPKey ID: 0x9BBBFC7C blog:http://alecthegeek.wordpress.com/ _______________________________________________ fossil-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
