On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 2:30 PM, Richard Hipp <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 1:23 PM, Ron Wilson <[email protected]> wrote:
>> (If anyone is curious, within the software group, we are free to
>> manage our tools as we need - as long as our tools use only our PCs
>> and only use IT servers for file service. To run a server on an IT
>> server PC requires approval from both the CIO and CFO.)
>
> So why not designate one developer as the "keeper of the master copy" and
> have her type "fossil server" in a DOS box?  And keep that DOS box open?

If any one of us had a second PC, we could do that. But we each have
only 1 PC (a laptop) that we use both at our individual work stations
and in the testing labs, or at other facilities. (Yes, I know, bad
idea to take our development PCs out of the office, but that is what
upper management expects us to do.) (In your are curious, we develop
and manufacture electronic control devices for various customers.)

We have talked about the possibility of using a PogoPlug with a USB
harddisk as a server, but getting approval to buy such a device would
be painfully difficult at best. And we will not consider connecting an
unauthorized device to the network.

> Having multiple clients use a single repository over a network filesystem
> will work, but you are likely to be more pleased with the performance by
> actually using a server.  And, with the server approach and pushing and
> pulling, you get automatic backups.

My thought was that each PC would one instance of Fossil working with
the shared repo (on port 9090), and a 2nd instance working with a
local repo to provide the UI. This way we would retain the benefits of
a distributed system without needing multi-way peer-to-peer pull/push.
Over time, we can work out how to add multi-way pull/push to Fossil.
(And submit a patch for review and possible inclusion.)
_______________________________________________
fossil-users mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users

Reply via email to