On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 5:40 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: > 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
With a small team, it is probably ok to work purely peer-to-peer, pushing/pulling between members as needed. With a larger team, until/unless Fossil is enhanced for true multi-peer push/push, either a central server or a shared file respository will make the logistics of sharing updates a lot easier. The reason my team chose to use a shared file repository with a backgroun Fossil instance on each PC is because (1) getting the IT department involved will create more headaches for us than it would solve. (2) Our PCs are laptops and we do take them with us to meetings and into the testing labs, so they are frequently disconnected from the network. (There are several issues, both security and technical, that make WiFi use outside of the cube-farm very unreliable.) If/when you decide you want a shared repository, it would probably be easier to set that up as a Fossil server - unless your IT deparment is as hard to work with as ours (at least when trying to get them to setup new services; for existing services, they are very responsive to users' issues). _______________________________________________ fossil-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
