Richard Hipp wrote:
On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 4:43 PM, Andy Bradford
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Thus said Miles Fidelman on Mon, 13 May 2013 16:09:30 -0400:
> I also wonder if it effected the choice of whether to use
fossil or
> not for various projects. I know that, personally, there are
a few
> places that I've wanted to START with versioned
documentation, and
> would have jumped on Fossil in an instant if the pieces where there.
One can always version control the documents in a separate
directory
called docs. ;-) Of course it won't be served up via Wiki,....
Sure it can. See
http://www.fossil-scm.org/fossil/doc/trunk/www/embeddeddoc.wiki for a
description.
Every page of the Fossil website (http://www.fossil-scm.org/) except
for the precompile-binary download page, is done exactly this way.
The document source files (usually Fossil Wiki, but HTML, plaintext,
and Markdown can also be used) are part of the source tree and are
checked in and checked out and edited just like C-code.
The only thing you can't do is edit the content on-line. In order to
edit the content, you have to have a clone of the repo, do a
check-out, edit on your disk, the commit. This can be seen as either
a feature or a bug, depending on your point of view.
Yes, but for collaborative document writing, something more like a full
wiki, is just that much nicer. So close, but...
Can't have everything, I guess.
Miles Fidelman
--
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
In practice, there is. .... Yogi Berra
_______________________________________________
fossil-users mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
