On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 2:03 PM, Stephan Beal <sgb...@googlemail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 8:07 PM, Nico Williams <n...@cryptonector.com> wrote: >> >> Being able to round-trip this way might allow more users to test-drive >> Fossil. > > > It's not possible due to the limitations of round-tripping doubles to and > from ISO format. Some percentage of the records will not translate accurate > (at the msec level).
It's possible by storing additional metadata. Redundant, annoying even, but to be ignored most of the time (except when computing hashes and when exporting to git). >> Getting radical architectural changes to git accepted seems likely to >> be impossible. >> I'd rather convince the Fossil developers/community to >> support the git features we need: > > > Good luck with that ;) These aren't architectural changes. For example, rebase == scripted sequence of cherry-picks. The index is more architectural, but not really that intrusive. Pushing only one branch, and so on, are also not really very intrusive (FYI, git went through that same evolution, in that initially the default was to push all branches unless you named a branch(es) to push.) >> - by default only push the branch that's checked out > > > Some work was done a year or two ago(?) on pushing only certain branches, > but i don't know where that ended up (not in the trunk, AFAIK). See? >> Things my colleagues and I are used to: >> >> - the index, of course >> - workflows with feature branches and clean history at integration >> ... - workflows with distributed and hierarchical teams >> >> - merge-heavy workflows with multiple remote repos and trunks > > Something to consider: the only thing git's lacking from your wish-list, > apparently, is durable storage. Conversely, Fossil seems to be lacking all > features you rely on _except_ durable storage. You're missing one item: a relational approach to history. I'm sure git can be fixed to recover more cleanly from interruptions during receives, commits, and so on. Composition of atomic operations from filesystem operations is difficult but not impossible. I'm sure eventually git will improve in this area, probably getting to good enough. But SQL? It'll never happen. One could bolt-on a metadata-only SQLite3 DB using git hooks, I'm sure, but being external would make it fragile. Nico -- _______________________________________________ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
