On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 11:11 AM, David Bovill <[email protected]>wrote:
> I'd like to know more about this as well. As I understand it you can nest > fossil repositories, I haven't tried it yet, but AFAIK you can have a > nested checkout within an existing checkout, and you can open it with the > "fossil open --nested" command. All --nested currently does is allow you to put one Fossil check-out inside another. To be really useful, we need to enhance it to go to the next level, and automatically next commits and pushes and pulls, etc. > > > 2011/11/14 Jacek Cała <[email protected]> > >> Hi all, >> >> A best practice question: >> What is the preferred way to include external libraries in a fossil >> repository? I mean larger dependencies like boost. >> For small libs and tools like a few binary or source code files, I >> tend to include them directly in the repo but for larger ones it >> doesn't seem like a proper approach, esp. when the library code is >> much larger than my sources. >> >> On stackoverflow I read that git to address this issue has something >> called 'subprojects' >> ( >> http://stackoverflow.com/questions/2994005/including-external-c-libraries-in-version-control >> ). >> Has anyone used that? Is creating a separate fossil repo with the >> library files an equivalent way? >> > > _______________________________________________ > fossil-users mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users > > -- D. Richard Hipp [email protected]
_______________________________________________ fossil-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
