I only use fossil update to move between branches; I have never used co/checkout and I only use fossil open when opening a cloned repository (I have only created a new repository once...) . I have never had any issues with it, except for the occasional merge conflict in a settings file (I keep a lot of daily use scripts with settings files in my fossil repository - easy to keep everything synced with history). As for branching, I use branches for scripts that contain multiple files or are part of a larger group, so I branch quite frequently. However, I also merge to trunk fairly frequently so that I usually only have to fossil update trunk on a different computer (I use 3 different computers pretty regularly for my work within fossil). Of course, I'm just one person working on a single-user repository, so ymmv.
David, if you are thinking about moving to fossil, I definitely recommend trying it. Granted, I came from a "version control system" that was a vbscript that made a copy of files in a specific folder every time the contents were modified. It was very difficult to find history in that, so I decided to research versioning systems and decided on fossil. Once I played with it and figured out the best way to fit it into my workflow, I could not be happier. The web interface (which was a requirement for me) is amazing, and the addition of a free/no-hassle wiki and ticketing system were just bonuses. I use the wiki pretty extensively for notes not directly related to my work within fossil. And I even learned how to actually build a piece of software from source since the fossil release for Windows when I started did not support SSL. JR On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 11:58 AM, Stephan Beal <sgb...@googlemail.com>wrote: > On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 5:47 PM, David Mason <dma...@ryerson.ca> wrote: > >> 1) It sounds like checkout, open, and update should all be part of the >> command rationalization discussion as they seem to overlap. Making >> them sort-of synonyms but with different default *could* work (e.g. >> checkout === update -overwite, update === checkout -keep, etc.) i.e. >> ,... >> > > All true enough. _Changing_ them might be difficult due to historical > momentum, but maybe we can put together at some some sort of chart or > comparison/contrast doc of those roughly similar commands. i'm kind of a > documentation nut, so i've written that down as something to work on in the > next few days. > > >> 2) I haven't actually used fossil yet... it's on my todo list, but >> mercurial works well enough that I haven't found the time to change >> over. And I don't use branches... Ron and Matt make a strong case for >> why I perhaps should. Anyone have a good reference to why and >> workflows for using branches. Are branches easier to deal with in >> fossil? >> > > i can't compare it to hg, but compared to svn, branching in fossil is > absolute child's play. i don't often use branches, basically only because > of my own historical momentum, but when i _do_ use them in Fossil i never > regret it (as i often have/do with svn). Easy peasy. > > -- > ----- stephan beal > http://wanderinghorse.net/home/stephan/ > http://gplus.to/sgbeal > "Freedom is sloppy. But since tyranny's the only guaranteed byproduct of > those who insist on a perfect world, freedom will have to do." -- Bigby Wolf > > _______________________________________________ > fossil-users mailing list > fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org > http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users > >
_______________________________________________ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
