Re: [fossil-users] [best practice] Including external dependencies
On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 11:11 AM, David Bovill wrote: > I'd like to know more about this as well. As I understand it you can nest > fossil repositories, I haven't tried it yet, but AFAIK you can have a > nested checkout within an existing checkout, and you can open it with the > "fossil open --nested" command. All --nested currently does is allow you to put one Fossil check-out inside another. To be really useful, we need to enhance it to go to the next level, and automatically next commits and pushes and pulls, etc. > > > 2011/11/14 Jacek Cała > >> Hi all, >> >> A best practice question: >> What is the preferred way to include external libraries in a fossil >> repository? I mean larger dependencies like boost. >> For small libs and tools like a few binary or source code files, I >> tend to include them directly in the repo but for larger ones it >> doesn't seem like a proper approach, esp. when the library code is >> much larger than my sources. >> >> On stackoverflow I read that git to address this issue has something >> called 'subprojects' >> ( >> http://stackoverflow.com/questions/2994005/including-external-c-libraries-in-version-control >> ). >> Has anyone used that? Is creating a separate fossil repo with the >> library files an equivalent way? >> > > ___ > fossil-users mailing list > fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org > http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users > > -- D. Richard Hipp d...@sqlite.org ___ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
Re: [fossil-users] [best practice] Including external dependencies
I'd like to know more about this as well. As I understand it you can nest fossil repositories, I haven't tried it yet, but AFAIK you can have a nested checkout within an existing checkout, and you can open it with the "fossil open --nested" command. 2011/11/14 Jacek Cała > Hi all, > > A best practice question: > What is the preferred way to include external libraries in a fossil > repository? I mean larger dependencies like boost. > For small libs and tools like a few binary or source code files, I > tend to include them directly in the repo but for larger ones it > doesn't seem like a proper approach, esp. when the library code is > much larger than my sources. > > On stackoverflow I read that git to address this issue has something > called 'subprojects' > ( > http://stackoverflow.com/questions/2994005/including-external-c-libraries-in-version-control > ). > Has anyone used that? Is creating a separate fossil repo with the > library files an equivalent way? > ___ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
Re: [fossil-users] [best practice] Including external dependencies
On Nov 14, 2011, at 3:19 PM, Jacek Cała wrote: > A best practice question: > What is the preferred way to include external libraries in a fossil > repository? I mean larger dependencies like boost. > For small libs and tools like a few binary or source code files, I > tend to include them directly in the repo but for larger ones it > doesn't seem like a proper approach, esp. when the library code is > much larger than my sources. Depends on the environment, but I'm kind of a fan of "it's scripted" approach. I remember a friend putting into our cmake some black magic that would download&build&install missing dependencies. I guess if your shop is homogenous this should not be that hard. Kind regards, Remigiusz Modrzejewski ___ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
[fossil-users] [best practice] Including external dependencies
Hi all, A best practice question: What is the preferred way to include external libraries in a fossil repository? I mean larger dependencies like boost. For small libs and tools like a few binary or source code files, I tend to include them directly in the repo but for larger ones it doesn't seem like a proper approach, esp. when the library code is much larger than my sources. On stackoverflow I read that git to address this issue has something called 'subprojects' (http://stackoverflow.com/questions/2994005/including-external-c-libraries-in-version-control). Has anyone used that? Is creating a separate fossil repo with the library files an equivalent way? Thanks, Jacek ___ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
