Re: [fossil-users] Has anyone tried sharing a repo via DropBox?
On Jan 3, 2011, at 20:19 , Stephan Beal wrote: For a small project with 1-2 devs who work in different timezones, it might be reasonable. And read-only access should never be a problem. The main difference for people watching the repo would be that they never need to fossil pull because dropbox copies over the changes. At this moment they don't have to fossil pull manually. The only reason for turning autosync off is being off-network. Which also hoses your Dropbox synchronization. No gain here. The only possible reason I see for such a thing is having no place to host a fossil server. Which, I guess, does not happen often for any dev teams. Fossil has very small requirements. 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] Has anyone tried sharing a repo via DropBox?
Hello, fossilers! Some of my fossil repos are not on the web, but instead in my DropBox (a file backup/sync service: http://getdropbox.com). i'm wondering if another Dropbox user out there has tried sharing a fossil repo with other developers via dropbox-shared folders. If so, were there any notable problems? Obviously, if either commit while a sync is taking place it could cause Dropbox to produce two copies (before/after collision), but dropbox sync is pretty fast, and doesn't take much more time then an http/fossil-server-based sync. i have used fossil-in-a-dropbox for months, but have never tried sharing such a repo with dropbox shared folders. If one of you is curious and sends me your dropbox user name i can set up a folder for us to try this out. :-? -- - stephan beal http://wanderinghorse.net/home/stephan/ ___ 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] Has anyone tried sharing a repo via DropBox?
On Mon, Jan 3, 2011 at 8:08 PM, Michael Barrow mich...@barrow.me wrote: This doesn't sound like a good idea at all. Yes the sync is pretty quick under normal circumstances, but that could easily go awry. Who would fix the two copies of the repo when there is a simultaneous commit by two parties? That's what dropbox does if it finds a conflict (same file changed on 2+ machines between syncs). It creates a file named Basename (conflict - hostnameOfConflictedFile).ext (or something similar). It has happened to me a couple times when i've edited an ODT file on two machines which subsequently synced. Normally sync happens immediately, but if the network is not reachable or dropbox has been turned off (or not turned on) then syncing is delayed until the next time the dropbox back-end can be reached. Obviously there would be the glaring problem with potential conflicts, but dropbox behaves intelligently here and doesn't hose one copy or the other. It also, however, doesn't, loudly complain, so you don't see the conflicted files unless you look for them. For a small project with 1-2 devs who work in different timezones, it might be reasonable. And read-only access should never be a problem. The main difference for people watching the repo would be that they never need to fossil pull because dropbox copies over the changes. -- - stephan beal http://wanderinghorse.net/home/stephan/ ___ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
