On Thu, Aug 08, 2013 at 10:48:36PM +0200, j. van den hoff wrote: > > 1. > the "Unlike most popular DVCSes..." is a bit misleading. all of them have > a database for each checkout, of course, but not in a single file. backing > them up is not really that much more complicated. I would try to emphasize > a bit more that the difference is indeed that fossil uses a "monolithic" > database, i.e. a single file instead of a directory tree and that has > indeed some advantages if you only use `cp' since you don't run into > permission issues.
I was trying to point out the distinction between the checkout and the repository file -- not to say that Git (for instance) doesn't have any "database" of version control. I tried to clarify the text, though, without overcomplicating things, given the very simple approach I'm trying to maintain. > > 2. > I'm not comfortable with categorically recommending to new users to > separate the database from the checkout. I know that many on this list > think this to be a good thing but in general (as opposed to "for special > use cases") I don't think there is any advantage. keeping the database > within the checkout (just as the others (git, hg, bzr, ...) do, has > advantages, too (e.g. ability to move the whole thing around without > closing/reopening the repo) and also allows to identify a checkout as > being (or having been) under fossil control even when the repo is > closed. so, I would mention both possibilities as being equally > viable and it being mostly a matter of taste which to choose. (e.g., > my preference is to put all the databases with a default name into > the checkout dir (I use `.fslrepo') and put the "server-side clones" > in a common location/directory. that works very well for me and would > indeed not recommend to locally separate the databases from their > checkouts). I don't want to turn the thing into a book-length exploration of all the options. It's meant to get people started quickly, and little else. I did rearrange things slightly in that paragraph to make it clearer that I did not intend a categorical imperative (apologies to Kant for abusing the term), but I did not add any digressions about the relative merits and flaws of differing approaches, which is better saved for other resources than mine. Hopefully this addresses your concerns. I appreciate the feedback. -- Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ] _______________________________________________ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
