On 22 July 2014 21:18, Matt Welland <[email protected]> wrote: > We are using -nested very successfully to break a large area of related but > mostly independent sub-areas into multiple fossils. I'm very happy with it. > > BTW, the whole reason why the modern SCM approach used by fossil, git etc. > is so powerful is because the number of degrees of freedom were reduced by > eliminating working on subsets of the file tree. If you add back in the > ability to subdivide the file tree then you will have to add complexity to > deal with branching and merging. > > Just my $0.02.
Alright. I saw your post (http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/pipermail/fossil-users/2014-January/015012.html) before I asked this question, btw. Did you start using --nested after that moment in time? I guess this sort of thing is personal, with added downside that it's quite costly to "try it a bit" (I mean change from one big repo to finer grained repos). We'll see; when frustration with one big repo rises above some limit here, perhaps I try with small repos (and perhaps back again :-) Michai _______________________________________________ fossil-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
