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
