Ok, I see. So having individual repositories is the better approach. What about having a server vs just a file ?
e.g fossil clone //server/repo.fossil repo.fossil vs. fossil clone http://server/repo:8080 repo.fossil Is this equivalent from a functional point of view? Since I don't need outside/public access I assume the first approach is better, since easier. Am I correct ? -----Original Message----- From: Ron Wilson Sent: Monday, March 14, 2011 6:49 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [fossil-users] do I need a fossil server? On Sun, Mar 13, 2011 at 5:46 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: > I’d like to setup fossil for a very small in-house team (1 to 3 people). > There’s no need ever for having outside access, everything is private, > firewalled and trusted. So I was wondering if I can create a repository on > a > file server, e.g //server/test.fossil > > > I guess what I’m giving up is for every user to having his own private > local > repository, but does that matter ? With a very small team, pushing/pulling between team members is very easy. You could setup scripts to handle this for you. Another approach: What I did for my workgroup was to setup an always running Fossil instance serving a shared repository. Then each user intereacts with a seperate instance of Fossil that uses a local repository. Each user works out their own repository, pushing and pulling to/from the shared repository via the background Fossil instance. This works quite well. (Though I note that what I really want is for Fossil to support full peer-to-multiple-peers operation. I have looked at the Fossil source and have an idea how I could enhance Fossil to support this. Hopefully, I will soon have time to work on it) _______________________________________________ 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
