Hello, > fossil import git > fossil import svn > fossil import hg > > And so forth.... Thoughts?
In my opinion, this is the most correct option for several reasons: 1- Do not pollute the global namespace 2- Make it easier for everyone that is not going to use the option (most of the users), and need to learn fast the fossil suboptions 3- The important actions is "import", the detail is "from where" About the full text search: - Size is important. At least for some uses. It is common to copy fossil repositories as files from one computer to another. At the same time, one repository can have multiple copies. One possibility could be: 1- The first time that the search is going to be used, require the index to be created 2- Create it outside of the fossil repository, either in a directory previously open or in the ".fossil" or something similar 3- Show all the results Regards, RR 2010/12/2 Richard Hipp <d...@sqlite.org>: > > > On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 4:06 AM, Kumar <srikuma...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> I've been using fossil for my personal work for a few months now, >> but never had the chance to try it on a large project. After seeing the >> new git import feature, I decided to give it a shot and .. whoa! >> My work git repo is 2.8GB in size. During the first stage of the import, >> the fossil file went to about 8.4GB, but after the "vacuuming", it shrank >> to the same 2.8GB. Sweet! > > FWIW, I'm thinking I should rename the "import" command to "git-import" - in > order to allow future expansion with other import schemes. Similarly, > "export" should be renamed "git-export". Or, maybe there is a secondary > command to specify the target, for example: > > fossil import git > fossil import svn > fossil import hg > > And so forth.... Thoughts? > >> >> Some questions - >> Q1: Rgd git import - my repo has git-svn branch references of the form >> "svnroot/BranchName". These have now been imported into fossil as >> branches with name "BranchName". Is the "svnroot/" info preserved >> somewhere in the repo? > > I was not real clear what should be done with those tags, so I stripped off > all but the last component of the tag. Is that not the right thing to do? > Please explain.... > >> >> Q2: "fossil ui" is nice. However, I'm missing search - like what "git >> gui" >> gives. What do fossil-ites use for searching the repo? Just straight >> database search? > > SQLite has a great full-text search engine built in. I've long thought that > it would be great to add an interface to this in Fossil. We could index > diffs for all check-ins, all wiki, all tickets, all Blog entries, etc, and > then have a Google-like interface for searching for things. Of course, the > full text index would likely double the size of the repository file, but in > this era of TB-size disk drives, is that really an issue? > > It's really more of a matter of finding the time to do the necessary > hacking.... > > >> >> Cheers, >> -Kumar >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> fossil-users mailing list >> fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org >> http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users >> > > > > -- > D. Richard Hipp > d...@sqlite.org > > _______________________________________________ > fossil-users mailing list > fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org > http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users > > _______________________________________________ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
