On 10/24/2016 04:59 PM, Warren Young wrote: > On Oct 24, 2016, at 2:32 PM, Adam Jensen <[email protected]> wrote: >> Isn't it a file (version) management system based on an embedded database? > > Under casual inspection, Fossil presents itself to the user that way, but if > you dig into the way it actually works, you quickly find many places where > Fossil doesn’t behave like a POSIX filesystem. (Or an NTFS one, for that > matter.) [snip]
By file management system (as opposed to a filesystem) I mean something more along the lines of managing the logistics, accounting, and presentation of files (rather than simply the storage of files). > There is an experimental (?) feature of Fossil allowing it to operate as a > FUSE filesystem. (fossil help fusefs) I suspect if you tried to use it that > way for any complex software build system — say, that of Firefox — that you’d > run into one or more of the above problems, or perhaps others I haven’t > cataloged, as the build system makes assumptions about POSIX semantics that > Fossil simply doesn’t provide. If a class of files were managed by Fossil that were not stored in the database but, rather, in the filesystem, it seems like FUSE might be a way to present various views (or checkouts) to a user. The current implementation seems to be a bit primitive and probably isn't usable for large binary files. http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg23865.html _______________________________________________ fossil-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
