OK, then what are you trying to accomplish with fossil?
//Bill
On 08/05/2009 11:26 PM, Alec Clews wrote:
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?
_______________________________________________
fossil-users mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
