On Sat, May 12, 2018 at 5:35 PM, Chris Drexler <ckolum...@ac-drexler.de> wrote:
> Does this make sense? At least from a workflow perspective? > Personally, i don't think so ;), but i tend to be admittedly pessimistic when it comes to "oddball setups". How do you expect to sync changes with such users? How do you expect to handle multiple copies of the binary (i.e. multiple copies of the repo) on each user's machine? At some point they'll overwrite one fossil bin with another one, thereby losing any changes they had made to the first. Upgrading the binary should not destroy any associated data, and that's exactly what will happen if all users aren't 100% careful with their copies of the binary. If it's truly static and users only have read-only access to the data, then it's far simpler for them to forego the binary altogether and use http://your-IP to connect to a central copy running on your workstation. "Can of worms" is what immediately comes to mind. An interesting idea, i admit, but "can of worms" trumps "interesting" for me. -- ----- stephan beal http://wanderinghorse.net/home/stephan/ "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
