Alternatively, if prefixes (or better suffixes) are attached when cloning, you wouldn't need that. Say my master/primary repo has prefix '1', so when I clone from it my repo would get from the master 1.1 for the first time and 1.N for the n-th time. When someone clones from my 1.1 repo -- exactly the same 1.1.N. I believe the prefixes wouldn't grow that much because most of the time users would clone from the master/primary repo.
Cheers, Jacek 2012/7/4 Richard Hipp <[email protected]>: > > > On Wed, Jul 4, 2012 at 3:09 AM, Ron Wilson <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 7:06 AM, Jacek Cała <[email protected]> wrote: >> > Right. I tend to forget about the distributed aspect of fossil as I >> > mostly work with the centralized setup. >> >> On the other hand, you could give each instance its own prefix, then >> all the ticket "numbers" would be unique. > > > You'd still need a centralized authority to assign the prefixes. > > >> >> This is a lot of hastle, but >> sometimes these hastles are necessary to get management to agree. FYI, >> there are still managers who will go to the hastle of maintaining >> issues with a spreadsheet. This is simple and easy for them to >> understand despite all the "manual" work of keeping the spreadsheet >> organized. >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 > _______________________________________________ fossil-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
