tis funny, i could have written the same email a year ago.. but i have essentially given up for now.. though i am not blaming fossil for that..
i still think fossil could be the core of a very nice solo operation with "cloud" backup via sync, but the amount of customisation/scripting/triggers that I would need to setup to make it *exactly* right is pretty overwhelming.. if I could cherry pick out of your wishlist though, managing tickets via the commandline would be #1 on my list.. and email appends to wikis/tickets would be a VERY close second.. and while i'm typing... has anyone got any information on the php implementation of fossil that was briefly discussed?? Daniel Alec Clews wrote: > Good question: > > I want a small business (read sole contractor) workflow engine. > Originally I cam across fossil because I was looking for a distributed > wiki engine. Here is how I see it working (my wish list): > > 1) Repo for templates, process documentation, sample files, accounts, > admin files etc > 2) Ticket system for all the various tasks that need attention > (internal IT stuff, customer queries, etc) > > 3) Repo for project knowledge base (reports, deliverables, notes etc) > and project tickets > > 4) Integration with email (e,g, raise tasks via email, bcc project > reports to the appropriate wiki pages when sending to customer,...) > > All this to be replicated between a central server and a laptop (I > sometimes end up in places with no network access all day) > > So far fossil seems to have a lot of excellent features to support > this. However I don't want to git up Git... and the command line seems > to be missing some of the features I would like. > > I only came across fossil yesterday so I'm trying to see what is possible > > Thanks > > Alec > > > On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 13:52, Bill Whiting<[email protected]> wrote: >> 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 >> >> > > > _______________________________________________ fossil-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
